The Law of Property: Case Study Coursework

If consider this case from the legal point of view, we need to summarize all the necessary data we which is given. Thus:

• Pam has the legal title of the owner of the house, as all the documents and contracts had been concluded under her name.
• Derek had paid the 20 % of the deposit for the acquisition of the house, but his papers, declaring that stayed unsigned
• Tim had paid for the fundamental redecoration of the house, but can be proved and stated only with the means of fiscal cheques, as his obligation or will to hold the redecoration had not been stated in the contract.

Summarizing all this up it is possible to conclude; that the leader of the occurred situation is Pam, as she has the major part of the rights (as she had paid 80% of the deposit, and the loan had been registered for her name). Legally, Pam has the full right to control the house according to her own discretion.

But, taking into account the shares of Derek and Tim to the purchase and the decoration of the house, it is necessary to mention, that they are empowered to claim the compensation of the losses they made (i.e. Derek’s contribution to deposit payment, and the redecoration made by Tim’s means). Inspite the fact, that Derek’s papers left unsigned, he may hire a lawyer, and complete the procedure of signing. Tim also has the opportunity to show the cheques declaring the redecoration expenses, and claim for the compensation. Thus, if Pam decides to sell the house, she will have to compensate the expenses.

As for the implied trust – both have the right to draw the necessary documents to become trustees, and have the house at partial disposal. This can be made on the provisions of the ties of relations, but the necessary provision of drawing the right of implied trust is the legal owner’s consent. As Pam is considered to be legal owner of the estate, it depends only on the firmness of their relations. Without Pam’s consent Derek and Tim have absolutely no right to be the trustees.

The cases from the archive of the Court of Appeal show that the relevant cases to this happened several times, and the Court’s decision had been taken in favor of the legal owner (Pam in the current case). But the people (friends, companions, relatives etc) who decided to help materially (such as Derek paying the part of the deposit, and Tim who paid for the redecoration the house with his own means) could account for the compensation, in the case they were not allowed to live in the apartments, if this impossibility had been caused by the decision of the owner (i.e. rent, sell, reequip for non-living purposes etc.)

The similar case happened in 1992 in Londonderry. The family consisting of three persons bought the estate for their personal living. Their son was 17 years old at that time, and in 3 years he got married. The young wife left with her husband’s parents, and just helped them to look around the house. But in 2 years they decided to divorce, and the question of wife’s right for that house raised. The arguments in her favor were that she helped to make up the room where the young family had been living, and the singular purchases of provision. The court declined the argument for the provision, and stated to compensate the wife’s contribution to the redecoration of the room, and equally divide all the utensils which had been bought after the marriage (Lexis, 2007)

According to the theoretical approaches of solving the property disputes, British legislation states, that in the similar cases, the favor always should b on the side of the legal owner, with the only exception, when the house is owned shared with someone. Thus the Court’s decision will depend on the amount of the owners, and take into account individual contribution of each to the process of purchase, repairs (if were), redecorations and additional equipping with services and utilities. In this case, selling/ renting income is divided proportionally within all the owners, and all the utilities, equipments and utensils are given to that/ those who bought it (proportionally). In the case, if someone lived with an aged person nursing one, in this case all the kitchen and house utensils are adjudicated to that person

Research Strategy

To research and solve the case described in the instructions, the following steps have been taken:

1. First, the writer made the research of the necessary laws and law projects from the British legislative system
2. Than, the analysis of the situation have been made (accounting all the pros and cons, for and against of every party to the dispute)
3. Similar case from the British legislative system have been regarded and compared both with each other and with the case described in the instructions.
4. Every aspect of the described case had been regarded from the point of view of the legislative system.
5. Then, the aspects of the case have been regarded together in the whole (this comparison gave the possibility to take into account additional aspects and factors, which can influence the Court’s decision).

The electronic searches that have been made during the research and regarding of the case included the searches through the on-line libraries, and available Court archives. Moreover, the literature on Property Law had been viewed, and the theoretical points described in the literature have been applied to the solving of the given dispute.

The electronic journals, which relate the case studies, and the new trends in the legislative system have also been viewed and taken into account as the integral part of the official treatise of the contemporary legislation

References

LexisNexis Archive of case studies: Web.

lock, Walter. “Private Property Rights, Economic Freedom, and Professor Coase: A Critique of Friedman, McCloskey, Medema, and Zorn.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26.3 (2003): 923.

Mattei, Ugo. Basic Principles of Property Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Introduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000.

Mcleod, Kembrew. Owning Culture: Authorship, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Law. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Penner, J. E. The Idea of Property in Law. Oxford: Oxford University, 1997.

Schmidgen, Wolfram. “Picturing Property: ‘Waverley’ and the Common Law.” Studies in the Novel 29.2 (1997): 191.