Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Land Law - Essay Example The position of the ?40,000 'compensation' paid by Brad. 5. Possibility of Celeb Bank removing Angelina from the premises. Rules â€Å"A mortgage is a security for a loan†1. This involves a transfer of a legal or equitable interest in the borrower's land to the mortgage with a provision that the mortgagee's interest shall end upon the repayment of the loan plus interests and costs2. This means that a mortgage is some kind of a loan that is given to enable a borrower to get interest in a land. The mortgagee (one taking the mortgage) gets interest to a given land or property whilst it is paid for by the mortgagor from the owner of the land3. In the case of Abbey National Building Society V Cann4 G lived with his mother D in a property. D contributed to the purchase price of a property that they moved into which G, the son, held for himself and his mother. They moved to a smaller house costing ?4,000 more than the previous house they both bought. The mother was only aware of the necessity to move but she was not aware of the fact that her son had taken another mortgage of ?25,000 with the defendants. Due to the son's failure to repay the mortgage, Abbey National Bank sought to repossess the house. D, the mother, was now living with her partner in the same house and she argued that she had an equitable proprietary right under the Land Registration Act 1925 (Now Land Registration Act, 2002). She therefore moved from the new premises and entered the old house that the bank was repossessing 35 minutes before the bank took over. The bank argued that D had no rights in the property. In deciding the case, the court examined whether the property could have been purchased without the mortgage or not. Also, the occupation of the premises under Section 70 (1) g of the Land Registration Act 1925 had to be permanent and not temporal in nature. It was therefore held that D had no rights to the property. In Ingram V CIR5 the question of determining the equitable right was based on whether the contribution made by a person claiming equitable rights to the property was vital in the acquisition of the mortgage or not. If it was, then the person has proprietary rights. If not, then there was no such right. Also, in National Province Bank Ltd V Ainsworth6 a distinction was made between proprietary interest and personal interest. In this case, the House of Lords held that before a right or interest can be admitted to the category of property right, it must be definable, identifiable by a third party and have some degree of permanence or stability. If there are some rights that do not fall in this category, it is classified as personal interest and is not a proprietary right and cannot lead to any claim under property law or trust law. Also, in the case of Lloyd Bank and Rosset7 it was held that the failure to contributing to the cost of running a house is not sufficient to create a proprietary right in a given property. Pettitt V Pettitt8 also demonstrate d that a man who contributed by making improvements to a house bought and owned by his wife was not substantial enough to create a proprietary interest. Where there was some contributions that was made by a cohabitee to the property, it becomes a resulting trust9. On the other hand, if the