Legal Studies For Trust Law In Asian Civil Law Jurisdictions - Case Of Share And Rights In Property

Issue

Discuss about the Legal Studies for Trust Law in Asian Civil Law Jurisdictions.

The present situation involves the issue on share as well as rights in property, which was belong to Jack and Janet under co- ownership. On the death of Jack, ownership remained with the Janet for the entire property and remarried to Jason who was a stay home husband. Further, it was found that Janet met with an accident and died while the property will stated Janetia, Janet’s sister as a sole beneficiary of the property. Accordingly, the given case incorporates issue between the plaintiff Jason and defendant Janetia for acquiring legal rights and share in the property. As per the will created by Janet, defendant Janetia holds the legal rights on the property while the plaintiff, Jason argued the legal rights and share on the property based on the equitable interest.

Issue in the present case associates with the plaintiff arguments which states that if Jason succeeds the case, he will become the beneficiary of the property whereas if Jason fails, he will have to evict the property as per the orders. Similar to case of Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland (2000) which involved the issue on occupation of property under the tenancy rights, Jason contended that he is entitled to get share in the property since Janet was his wife. It was argued that originally, the house property was jointly owned by Jack and Jane but due to the demise of Jack, Janet became the owner and acquired the rights to prepare will together with the right of appointing beneficiary of the house. Moreover, Janet remarried Jason stating the fact of equal rights on the house property while the information on the name of actual beneficiary was not disclosed until the death of Janet. Accordingly, Janetia in the present issue defended that Jason does not own the legal rights on the house property since will prepared by the owner that is Janet contained Janetia as the “sole beneficiary”.

In the present situation, issue had been raised with respect to the legal rights and share in the house property between plaintiff, Jason and defendant, Janetia for considering beneficiary rights after the demise of the owner Janet. According to the Act on right to property, Article 17 a legal individual acquires the right to own the property individually or together with the other under co- ownership. Further, the situation in the given case incorporates regulations of equitable interest for beneficiary rights in the house property. Equitable interest refers to the beneficial interest held by an individual under the equitable title of the property which provides right to hold legal title on the property (Patterson, 2014). The present case is similar to the case of Williams and Glyn’s Bank v Boland (1981) which involved the issue of priority interest of the bank for possession of property over the possession right of the wife.

Rules

In addition, the case involves the rules in terms of legal and equitable title rights which considers legal ownership in the property together with the right to control while equitable title provides only right to use the property. Case of Lord Browne- Wilkinson incorporated the similar issue for considering equitable title v legal title for acquisition of rights on property. Further, the issue involves the legal rules with respect to Estoppel, which refers to a group of “legal doctrines in the system of common law” preventing an individual to make contradictory assertions in terms of stating particular facts to exercise certain rights (Stewart et al., 2014). Case of Ramsden v Dyson incorporates issue on legal interest of the plaintiff in the land, which associates with the rules of estoppel for making contradictory assertions. Additionally, legal right to use the property is provided under the license granted as a permission to be on the land that is required to be examined in the present case.

Considering the facts and issues of the case together with the applicable rules, it can be said that the rules on equitable interest is applicable in the present situation. Equitable interest applies as a legal interest in the property under trust, which provides beneficiary interest along with the legal rights and legal powers to use the property. In the present case, sole beneficiary as per the will formed by Janet was Janetia, her sister while Jason had been using the property being Janet’s husband. In case of Eves v Eves (1975) EWCA Civ 3, issue consisted of constructive trusts with respect to family home under the regulations of English Law. Facts of the case involved was acquisition of home by Mr. Eves and place his name as a legal title while his girlfriend was not given the legal title since her age was less than 21. Accordingly, the court held the case and contented that the house was acquired and held by Eves based on the constructive trust while Janet held a share of one- quarter therefore, Janet had legal rights over the property due to the equitable interest (Blöchliger et al., 2015). Similarly, in the present case, Jason holds share in the use of house property while Janetia holds beneficiary rights in the property under the equitable interest under trust rules.

Right to use the property under legal title as well as under equitable title can be examined by considering the rules of Trust Law that exists in the regulations and jurisdictions of Common Law. As per the common law, ownership of property belong the trustee for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries but equitable ownership and legal ownership rights are separate in case of trust property. In case of Laskar v Laskar (2008) EWCA Civ 347, the issue involved acquisition of property using the mortgage scheme for realization of interest together with the receipt of rental income by the parties. Considering the case issue, court held that the appellant in the situation had share of interest up to 4.28% under the equitable title as the appellant had beneficial interest in the property. Accordingly, the mother was entitled to get rental income share under the rules of beneficial interest as well as she paid half amount of liabilities for repairs and mortgage scheme as a part of contribution (Salmon, 2016).

Application

For the purpose of evaluation of legal rights on the house property owned by Janet, rules of constructive trust can be analyzed that refers to the equitable remedy placed by the court for the benefit of deprived party. Applying the case of Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset (1990) UKHL 14, it has been observed that the actual occupation of home was with Mrs. Rosset with the common intention in the property share rights. Facts of the case involved acquisition of semi- derelict house by Mr. and Mrs. Rosset by using the trust money of the family. Accordingly, trustee contended the right of legal ownership stating the acquisition of property by using the trust money together with the use of funds for house renovations (Hodgson, 2015). Further, it was observed that the Mr. Rosset borrowed loan from the bank against the house as a mortgage security while the charge was created on the house without the knowledge of Mrs. Rosset. Later, it was found that the Mr Rosset could not repay the amount of loan and the bank acquired the possession of the property as it was held under security. However, Mrs. Rosset contended the right to stay in the house property stating the mortgaging charge was not created with her consent. In view of the rules on property rights and facts of the case, court held that there was common intention for possessing the ownership of the house and Mrs. Rosset had actual ownership, which does not need to have physical occupation. On the contrary, “House of Lords” held that the Mrs. Rosset did not acquire beneficial interest in the house property under the rules of constructive trust since she did pay contribution in the acquisition price nor she had any share under equitable title (Oldham, 2016).

Similarly, in the present case of legal rights issue between Jason and Janetia, Jason did not pay any contribution for the acquisition of house or did not mention to have any share in the property as equitable interest. It has been mentioned that Janet confirmed the right to use the property to Jason as per verbal communication but there was no written agreement or deed stating the legal right to use the property by Jason. On the contrary, after the demise of Janet, sole beneficiary of the house was Janet’s sister that is Janetia as per the will prepared by Janet. Accordingly, Jason did not hold any constructive right or equitable interest in the house property while Janetia held the beneficiary rights on the property.

In case of Wayling v Jones (1993) issue of legal entitlement of the business of defendant was considered based on the fact the plaintiff carried on the chauffer service for defendant in order to earn pocket money. The defendant and the plaintiff were partners while the defendant assured the plaintiff for inheritance of the business. It was mentioned that will created by defendant did not contain the plaintiff’s name for business inheritance (Ho & Lee, 2013). Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to inherit the business since there was an agreement and assurance from the defendant against the chauffer service. The case associates with the “doctrines of promissory estoppels” that prevents a party to exercise illegal rights, which involves assertions of specific rights (Reiss, 2015). Accordingly, in the present situation, rules of estoppel applies on the Jason and Janet since, Janet promised and assured Jason with respect to the right to use the property and he need not to worry about future that result him to be a stay- home husband.

Considering the decision of the case Tanner v Tanner (1975) WLR 1346, contractual rights, interest and beneficial interest with respect to the rights of property had been evaluated. Fact of the case stated that Mr. Tanner involved with a married woman and moved in with Mr. Tanner giving up the rented accommodation with the hope of staying there for future. Besides, Mr. Tanner married another woman and offered payments for maintenance to leave, which she did not agree and appealed to the court. The court held the case examining the contractual interest and estoppels rules, stated that there was no contractual agreements between Mr. Tanner as well as the plaintiff. In addition, there was no promise made my Mr. Tanner to create any beneficial interest or equitable interest to use the property by the plaintiff (Solum, 2015). However, the case involved the acquisition of contractual license, which could not be ceased and particularly enforceable on behalf of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the present case of Jason and Janet associates with the Estopell rules since Janet promised her husband for the right to use the property.  

Conclusion:

In view of the facts and application of rules for rights on property as well as right to use the property under beneficiary and legal interest, it can be said that the Janetia holds the beneficiary rights on the property. Considering the rules of equitable interest and relevant case judgment, it can be said that as per Janet’s will Janetia acquires the beneficiary interest to use the property. Further, Janetia also acquired the beneficiary rights and obligations on the property under Trust Law while Jason was not entitled to hold the rights on property since he was not given the beneficiary ownership as per the will. On the contrary, rules on “doctrines of promissory estoppels” provides rights on Jason as Janet promised for right to use the property but there was no contractual agreement between them. Additionally, contractual interest and constructive trust rules to be applied stating that there was no legal contract between Jason and Janet. Therefore, applying the rules of contractual interest and equitable interest, Jason does not have legal rights to the house but if the rules of Estoppell overrides, then Jason acquires the legal right to the property.

Reference List and Bibliography

Blöchliger, H., Égert, B., Alvarez, B., & Paciorek, A. (2015). The stabilisation properties of immovable property taxation.

Ho, L., & Lee, R. (2013). Trust Law in Asian Civil Law Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Hodgson, G. M. (2015). Much of the ‘economics of property rights’ devalues property and legal rights. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(04), 683-709.

Hudson, A. (2016). Principles of Equity and Trusts. Routledge.

Huffman, J. L. (2016). Protecting the Great Lakes: The Allure and Limitations of the Public Trust Doctrine. U. Det. Mercy L. Rev., 93, 239.

McLaughlin, J. T. (2016). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60, Relief from a Judgment or Order. Moore's Federal Practice-Civil, 12.

Oldham, J. T. (2016). Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property. Law Journal Press.

Patterson, D. (2014). Waiver Problem in Maine Real Property Foreclosure Law: A Commercial Paper Perspective.

Reiss, D. R. (2015). Relying on Government in Comparison: What Can the United States Learn from Abroad in Relation to Administrative Estoppel. Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 38, 75.

Salmon, M. (2016). Women and the law of property in early America. UNC Press Books.

Sitkoff, R. H. (2013). Trust law as fiduciary governance plus asset partitioning.

Sloan, B. (2015). Keeping up with the Jones case: establishing constructive trusts in ‘sole legal owner’scenarios. Legal Studies, 35(2), 226-251.

Solum, L. B. (2015). Effect of Judgment & Preclusion, Issue Preclusion and Collateral Estoppel. Moore's Federal Practice-Civil, 18.

Stewart, C., Lipworth, W., Aparicio, L., Fleming, J., & Kerridge, I. (2014). The problems of biobanking and the Law of Gifts. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Tipton, M. (2015). Can You Trust Your Trust: Analyzing the Decision and Implications of Rachal v. Reitz on Arbitration Provisions in Trust Agreements. Akron L. Rev., 48, 979.

Vandenborre, I., & Frese, M. J. (2014). Most Favoured Nation Clauses Revisited. EUR. COMPETITION L. REV., 12, 588.