and enjoyment of the premises” Outside spotlight with timer Chattel Conceded by purchaser fittings Chattel Conceded by purchaser Stove Fixture “[The stove is] essential and integral to kitchen […] necessary to ordinary use […] notwithstanding the slight degree of annexation” “[was installed for the] improvement and enjoyment of the premises” Portable heater Chattel Conceded by purchaser Holland v Hodgson Helps define level of annexation requirement. Facts The owner of a “worsted” mill had a mortgage on the property that included the land, the engines and “all other fixtures whatever which … shall be set up and affixed.” were 436 woolen looms installed By into wooden plugs into the stone floor This was in order to keep them in a proper position and steady
Storey v Advanced Bank This case regards the company seal. Facts Storey negotiates a loan with Advanced Bank In the name of a company Storey is the director, but he requires board approval for loan He get board approval, but affixes company seal Held If, prima facie, the company seal is affixed, there is no requirement for the bank to check with the board. Snowlong Pty Limited v Choe This case is an example of either fraud or personal equity. A landlord is subject to an unregistered 5 year lease Purchaser agrees to buy subject to the lease Purchaser registers Purchaser seeks to kick out tenant, since his title falls outside of the short tenancies rule Held The purchaser agreed to be subject to the If he formed the intent to the agreement before registration, it is fraudulent If he formed the intent after, he is subject to a claim of personal equity Prior folios (s 42(1)(a) of the Real Property Act) the Land Title Office makes a mistake, and there are two different CT’s for the same piece of land, the older CT prevails. If an error is made, you can recover damages.
Held Building society has a legal unregistered interest Not guilty of postponing conduct, because the document was “in escrow” Bullock knew Solicitor worked for the Building Society, and handed over the receipt, thus guilty of postponing conduct Thus, Building Society (s 43A legal, no postponing) Lloyds (equitable) Bullock (equity, postponing) Execution of a dealing which does not truly reflect the transaction, such as the execution of a transfer by a registered proprietor, who has mortgaged but not sold a property (Holding out) Breskvar v Wall Breskvar was the proprietor Borrowed money from Mr. Petrie Convinced them to sign a blank transfer as security for the loan Write in his son, Wall, into the spot Onsold to Alban Before Alban registration, Breskvars sued Held The fraud of the grandfather was imputed on the grandson So Breskvar and Alban had priority over Wall. What of the Breskvar (equitable) and Alban (equitable) dispute? The Breskvars were earlier, so would have won But, they were postponed because they held out that they had sold And, Alban, not unreasonable, assumed this was the true position Paid bona fide value Without notice “The appellants armed the second respondent with the means of placing himself on the register” executed transfer and CT, authorized Petrie to use if nevessary
Mortgage payments Ryan v Dries modified the law with regards to mortgage payments, cementing their position as “improvements” to land. Mr. Ryan and Ms Dries were tenants in common Ryan 6/7, Dries owned 1/7 Purchase price was $200 000 Ryan and Dries were equally responsible for a $120 000 bank loan The court held that Dries was entitled to 43% of the property (her input amount + half of the mortgage amount she was responsible for) Mr. Ryan paid off the loan (after interest, $195 000) Without “set offs” (e.g. occupation rent), Ryan was to be compensated for $97 500, the amount of mortgage repayments Dries was meant to pay However, there were set offs (Dries only lived there 10% of the time, and then, after a point, she didn’t live there at all) This set off part of the mortgage payment allowance granted in equity Occupation rent However, this net cost of improvements is offset against a “rent” for an occupier if he is the sole occupier to the other owners. This “rent” is only an offset, and cannot be independently charged. Entitlements (occupation, rent and profits) Entitlement to occupy Each co-owner is entitled to possession; if they choose not to occupy, they cannot sue for compensation unless the contract expressly stated so (Forgeard v Shanahan). If a is expressly excluded, there is a right to sue (Creswell v Hedges; Forgeard v Shanahan), this express exclusion may be behavior that is objectionable enough to amount to exclusion (Dennis v McDonald). Entitlement to collect rent Money collected by a co-owner was impressed with a trust to hold the rent on trust for all co-owners in their proportionate shares (Hutchins v Hutchins). A co-owner collecting is an agent for the group of co-owners (Ryan v Dries, relying on Strelly v Winson (1685)).