In Davis and another v Smith [2011] EWCA Civ 1603, the Court of Appeal was required to consider whether severance had occurred during the course of numerous correspondence exchanged between the parties’ solicitors (who had been instructed once the couple’s marriage had broken down). Lord Neuberger accepted the view that a mere agreement to put a jointly owned property on the market, or indeed a subsequent joint acceptance of a ‘subject to contract’ offer on that property, could [...]sever the joint tenancy. Such action alone would not be inconsistent with a joint tenancy continuing and applying to the sale proceeds. However, in this particular case the parties had gone further by, for example: indicating that when the house was sold, the sale proceeds would be divided; by both parties benefiting from seeking legal advice; by discussions between them which recognised that when various joint assets had been sold, the proceeds would be divided in a balanced way.
Answer
not, by itself,
Tags
#co-ownership #land #law
Question
In Davis and another v Smith [2011] EWCA Civ 1603, the Court of Appeal was required to consider whether severance had occurred during the course of numerous correspondence exchanged between the parties’ solicitors (who had been instructed once the couple’s marriage had broken down). Lord Neuberger accepted the view that a mere agreement to put a jointly owned property on the market, or indeed a subsequent joint acceptance of a ‘subject to contract’ offer on that property, could [...]sever the joint tenancy. Such action alone would not be inconsistent with a joint tenancy continuing and applying to the sale proceeds. However, in this particular case the parties had gone further by, for example: indicating that when the house was sold, the sale proceeds would be divided; by both parties benefiting from seeking legal advice; by discussions between them which recognised that when various joint assets had been sold, the proceeds would be divided in a balanced way.
Answer
?
Tags
#co-ownership #land #law
Question
In Davis and another v Smith [2011] EWCA Civ 1603, the Court of Appeal was required to consider whether severance had occurred during the course of numerous correspondence exchanged between the parties’ solicitors (who had been instructed once the couple’s marriage had broken down). Lord Neuberger accepted the view that a mere agreement to put a jointly owned property on the market, or indeed a subsequent joint acceptance of a ‘subject to contract’ offer on that property, could [...]sever the joint tenancy. Such action alone would not be inconsistent with a joint tenancy continuing and applying to the sale proceeds. However, in this particular case the parties had gone further by, for example: indicating that when the house was sold, the sale proceeds would be divided; by both parties benefiting from seeking legal advice; by discussions between them which recognised that when various joint assets had been sold, the proceeds would be divided in a balanced way.
Answer
not, by itself,
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it the couple’s marriage had broken down). Lord Neuberger accepted the view that a mere agreement to put a jointly owned property on the market, or indeed a subsequent joint acceptance of a ‘subject to contract’ offer on that property, could <span>not, by itself, sever the joint tenancy. Such action alone would not be inconsistent with a joint tenancy continuing and applying to the sale proceeds. However, in this particular case the parties had
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.