Online House Hunting

Land Law situation?

Last week your client Samantha completed the purchase of Blackacre, a large manor house with substantial grounds, all of which is registered at HM Land Registry with absolute freehold title. Samantha has been living abroad, where she saw the property advertised in a magazine. She was so struck by the photograph and description of the property she decided to buy it, and agreed all the terms and completed the transaction while still overseas. She has now returned to take up occupation, and on visiting it for the first time has been met with a number of alleged claims, as set out below. (a)The vendor, Julia, in whose sole name the property was registered, is still living in a cottage on the grounds with her brother Stephen, and her sister Margaret. Margaret says (truly) that she put up half the original purchase price money when Julia bought the property seven years ago, as Stephen had no money, and that all three of them moved to the cottage two years ago as the manor house had become too big for them. Margaret says that she does not want to move. (b)Stephen also says that he does not want to move. (c)Jones, a local farmer, produces a 25 year lease, granted last month, of a paddock behind the cottage. Margaret and Julia are still keeping their horses there. (d)Haye, another farmer, produces a seven year lease, granted two years a go, of an outbuilding in which he has been storing cattle feed. The lease contains an option to purchase the freehold of the outbuilding at the full market price at any time in the next five years. (e)Michael has a written contract dated 1 August 2000 for the grant to him of a ten year lease of the manor house commencing on 1 January 2006. He has not occupied the premises but his brother Albert has been allowed to live there rent-free until Michael’s return from the USA next year. Explain to Samantha which, if any, of these people’s rights in Blackacre can be enforced against her. How would your answer to (a) differ if the property had been registered in the names of Julia and Stephen and the transfer executed by both of them?

Public Comments

1. Jarndyce V Jarndyce.
2. Who knew that British law professors were as nasty in first year property courses as American profs? A. Julia is out, as is Stephen and Margaret, assuming they were not on the title (and that's pretty clear, since the land office registered the title to Samantha free and clear) and assuming there's no landlord/tenant law that protects them. B. see above. C. Jones retains his leasehold unless the relevant jurisdiction has a requirement that a least of that duration be recorded (and this one presumably wasn't). D) Haye presumably is within the requirement of C, and thus his lease retains validity. E. Michael had a future interest which is now a present interest, if the lease has been signed then the same lease recording provisions apply. However, if he has a contract with the previous owner for a lease but never got that lease, his contract is invalid against the new owner, and his recourse, if any, is against the old owner, for breach of contract. Had the property been register in J&S and executed by both, no difference, except that any Landlord/Tenant consideration would not apply to Stephen. PS - I hated property class.
3. Do your own homework - you'll make more sense of it that way.