CO OWNERSHIP PROPERTY FINAL

Trystan, Bryn, Mari, and Jonas formed The Queens Singers, a group of classical
singers. They were spotted at a concert in Cambridge by a talent scout for a record
label. In 2016, after the group signed a record deal, they decided to buy an old
country house just outside Cambridge as an investment and a place for them to live.
They purchased King’s High, a house with a recording studio in the basement. To
raise the £480,000 purchase price all four used £120,000 from the monies the record
company paid them as an advance on the release of their first album. The title to
King’s High was conveyed to all four friends “as beneficial joint tenants”.
Unfortunately, their debut album was a total flop. Bryn and Jonas found the
negative critical response so difficult to deal with they started to drink heavily.
In September 2018 Jonas died after he fell in the river after a drinking bout at
the Student Prince public house. In his will Jonas left his entire estate to his
cousin, Placido. In November 2018 Bryn sold his share in King’s High to Rhys, a
friend and investment broker, in order to fund a residential programme to treat his
addiction. Rhys did not move into King’s High, which he considered to be a
financial investment. In 2019 Trystan resigned from The Queen’s Singers so that he
could go to America and restart his recording career as a tenor soloist. He held a
conference telephone call with Rhys and Mari to tell them about his plans. He
added: “I no longer want to be a joint tenant in King’s High, and I need to finance
my career plans so the house will have to be sold”. Several days later Trystan
wrote a letter to both of them confirming the terms of his telephone call. He
posted the letter to Mari at King’s High and sent a copy of the same letter by
registered post to Rhys’s office. Before the letter arrived, Mari texted Trystan
with the news that she is expecting his baby. Shocked, Trysten immediately replied
telling her to ignore his letter as he would be staying to look after her and the
baby. Trystan’s American record company agreed that he could use the recording
studio at King’s High to make his first solo album. A few days later, the
registered letter Trystan sent to Rhys was returned undelivered. In 2020 Mari gave
birth to a son, Llyr. He was born premature with a severe congenital heart problem
that required regular visits to the local hospital. In 2021 Rhys immediately
defaulted on the loan repayments for a mortgage of his interest in King’s High that
he granted to the Rough Bank to fund his ailing investment business. He left the
country. Advise the Rough Bank about: (a) who is entitled to King’s House; and (b)
the prospect it can succeed in obtaining a court order for its sale.

As far as we know, T, B, M, and J have all purchased the title F king's palace for
themselves. We additionally comprehend that numerous things happened throughout the
course of their relationship, and we need to figure out the co-ownership structure,
nature, type, and their equity shares. In light of the disagreement outlined in the
fact, we must also ascertain whether or not the King's house had been sold by an
order of the court.

As a result of the Property Act of 1925, whenever two or more people collectively
acquire title to property that is immovable, a trust of land is automatically
established by operation of law, with the legal owners acting as trustees and
holding the title in trust for the equitable owners. The initial problem is to
figure out the basis for co-ownership among the parties. If there is a trust deed
signed by the parties, the individuals involved will be the equitable proprietors.
The legal owners by inference will also become the equitable owners due to the
absence of a valid contract. T, B, M, and J are the equitable proprietors in the
scenario provided, and T, B, M, and J are also the legal owners. Additionally,
there also exists a trust deed in place.
The type and status of co-ownership within the parties in equity and at law is the
second issue that needs to be addressed. There is no other type of ownership after
LPA 1925 besides joint tenure or tenure in general. The four unities of time,
title, interest, and possession must be present in a joint tenancy in order for
there to be joint interests and no division. Additionally, the right of succession
must be present so that, in the event of a joint tenant's death, his or her share
shall pass automatically to the remaining joint tenants. However, tenancy in
general with the right of succession and splitting up the shares is not applicable.
The legal title shall be held as a joint tenancy after LPA 1925, with an a maximum
number of four legal owners, while the equitable title can be held with either a
joint tenant or tenancy in common, as stated in the deed of trust if there is one.
Although "equity follows the law" in the absence of a trust deed, the equitable
ownership is also considered a joint tenancy. In this instance, T, B, M, and J will
be joint tenants at law, and as stated in the trust document, the equitable title
has been passed on as a joint tenancy.

Once the structure and nature of co-ownership have been established, we must now
decide on whether or not any occurrences that have happened among the the two sides
can lead to termination. On the basis of this, we will calculate each co-owner's
ownership rights. We point out that severance is a procedure that turns joint
tenure at equity into a tenancy in general. Withdrawal can take place using both
statute and common law procedures. We will talk about each instance individually
since there are various events.

(a) Assuming that Jonas passed away and left his share of the property to the
remaining joint tenants in accordance with the terms of his will, as J was a joint
tenant and passed away, his share will not pass to P in accordance with the terms
of his will.

(b) From the information we can tell, B sold R his equitable interest in the King's
home. Severance immediately takes place in accordance with the common law rule of
severance if a co-owner sells or mortgages his or her share of the equity. In this
instance, B's shares will only be divided upon selling in equity, and R will take
B's place as a tenant in common with 33.33% of the ownership, while the remaining
shareholders will become joint tenants with 66.66% of the shares.

(c) With respect to T, it should be noted the fact that he has verbally informed M
and R that he intends to sell his share of the property. The common law regulations
state that severance can take place based on the consent of all joint tenants. In
this scenario, T and M acting as R is a TIC. Severance will not take place because
there is no proof that M acknowledged with T during the phone conversation.
However, we see that T has written to M and R separately.
in accordance with the mandatory severance policy outlined in Section 36(2) of LPA
1925. If one joint tenant gives notification in writing of the intent to terminate
their joint tenancy and delivers the written notification to the other joint
tenants in person or via registered mail, the other joint tenants will receive the
notice. So, whether the written notice is received or not, severance takes place at
the time of delivery. There has been no need to deliver the letter to R because he
is a TIC, as is noted. Although a note in writing with an immediate purpose to
sever was sent to M's address, which is King's home referring to her. As a result,
we have proof that T wishes to have his severance contract revoked prior to the
letter is even delivered. While there is no case law to support the possibility of
revoking severance, if notice of the revoking is provided to the other JTs earlier
than their delivery, this ought to be possible. Severance won't take place because
T made it obvious to M ahead of the letter was delivered that he is unwilling to be
harsh and to ignore it.

The final concern is if the bank, who is the secured creditor, will be able to use
the sale of the land as collateral or not. Despite the fact that the bank has
complete authority to sell R's equitable interest, which is 33.33%, in reality they
won't be able to. As a result, the best course of action is to ask T, M, and B to
sell their complete legal title. T and M, subsequently, will decline because they
want to reside in the house. As a result, the bank will have to appeal to the
courts in accordance with section 14 of the TOLATA and ask the court for permission
to conduct a sale. The courts will consider every single factor, including those
listed in section 15 (TOLATA), such as intent, the reason for purchasing the
property, the welfare of children, and secured creditors' rights. Since it is
unjust that their money is locked up, judges do favour secured creditors, according
to prior precedent. However, the judges consider every aspect, evaluate the rights,
and decide whether or not a sale will take place. In the current situation, both
domestic and commercial purposes were involved in the purchase of real estate. The
domestic goal is still in place. It is obvious that there is a child on the
property who has recently given birth, and there are also two other people who need
hospital care for issues, and the hospital is close by. Additionally, the loan sum
will be equal to the property's share of R, or 33.33% of its value. With all of the
aforementioned factors taken into account, it is highly probable that the courts
will delay the sale until the child is mature enough and in a better state to not
require stay in the hospital.