Land law cases overriding interests and co ownership

Caselaw for seminar 1 Land law – overriding interests

Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1981] AC 487 House of Lords

Mr Boland was the sole registered proprietor of the matrimonial home. Mrs Boland had made substantial contributions to the purchase price and mortgage payments entitling her to a beneficial interest in the house.  Mr Boland mortgaged the house and defaulted on payments. The bank sought possession of the property and Mrs Boland claimed an overriding interest under s.70(1)(g) Land Registration Act 1925based on her beneficial interest which was protected by her actual occupation of the house. The bank argued that the wife’s occupation was not inconsistent with the title offered and that an interest could not be both a minor interest and overriding interest.

Held:

The wife’s beneficial interest was overriding by virtue of her actual occupation. The bank’s action for possession was therefore unsuccessful.

Lord Wilberforce:

Actual occupation - “are ordinary words of plain English, and should, in my opinion, be interpreted as such.”

“it was suggested that the wife's "occupation" was nothing but the shadow of the husband's—a version I suppose of the doctrine of unity of husband and wife. This expression and the argument flowing from it was used by Templeman J. in Bird v. Syme-Thomson [1979] 1 W.L.R. 440-444, a decision preceding and which he followed in the present case. The argument was also inherent in the judgment in Caunce v. Caunce (supra)which influenced the decisions of Templeman J. It somewhat faded from the arguments in the present case and appears to me to be heavily obsolete.”

City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] 1 AC  54 House of Lords

Mr & Mrs Maxwell Brown purchased Bleak House in 1977 for £34,000. Half the purchase price was funded by the parents of Mrs Maxwell Brown, Mr & Mrs Flegg.  Bleak House was registered in the names of Mr & Mrs Brown who held the legal title on trust for sale. The Fleggs and the Maxwell Browns occupied the house. In 1982 the Maxwell Browns, in breach of trust, mortgaged the property for £37,500 to City of London Building Society. The Fleggs were unaware of this mortgage and the Maxwell Browns used the money for their own purposes. The Maxwell Browns subsequently defaulted on the mortgage payments and City of London Building Society brought a action seeking possession of Bleak House. The Fleggs defended on the grounds that they had a beneficial interest in the property through their contribution to the purchase price and this was an overriding interest under s.70(1)(g) Land Registration Act 1925 since they were in actual

occupation when the mortgage was taken out. City of London Building Society claimed that the Flegg’s interest had been overreached since they had paid the capital moneys to two trustees. The trial judge found for the Building Society. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. City of London Building Society appealed to the House of Lords.

Held:

The Flegg’s interest had been overreached. Their right existed only in the proceeds of sale.…