Law Of Property
Property law is that area of law that is governed by various forms of ownership and tenancy in real property and in personal property within the system of common law. In Singapore, the property has been governed in accordance with the common law legal system. In the civil law system there is a division between movable and immovable property. Conveyance is the legal process for transferring of property from one owner to another owner. In conveyance, a contract has been made between the buyer and the seller (Martin, 2016). In this report, it will be discussed on the issues that whether the Jason has legal interest in the property. The validity of Will in regards to Trust will be discussed in the report. Jason equitable interest in the property will be discussed that whether Jason has the right in the property. The remedies will be discussed that Jason can demand from the Court. The remedies can be demand on resulting trust, consecutive trust, estoppels and other remedies.
There are many legal issues have been arise in this case that are:
Does Jason have a legal interest in the property?
Does Janet sister have the right in the property?
Does Jason have an equitable interest in the property?
Does Jason is accountable for remedies for the legal title?
Jason Legal Interest
The legal interest in the property arise from the property that has been against that there
In Stack v Dowden  2 AC 432 case, it has been said when the property has been purchased jointly and the beneficial interest in the property will be same. Legal interest arise out of when there is evidence of trust.
The case state that Janet has the legal right in the property, she is 50% beneficiary in the property, and after the death of her husband she is the sole beneficiary and as applied in the case she can transfer the property and as per will that states the she is the sole beneficiary. Therefore, Janet sister has a right in the property because the will has been considered in eyes of law legal because it is in written. Jason right will not been considered because the trust can be created with fraud, misrepresentations and threat (Armfield, 2015).
Jason does not have any legal interest in relation to the law. Jason right will not occur because will states that Janet sister is the sole beneficiary of the property. As per law that states assets that has left in a ‘will’ go through in accordance with the will. The Assets that have been promised in living will not go through in accordance with that it is not in writing. The beneficiary will always be the person whose name in the Will and not in accordance with the trust.
Will Has Been Made After Marrying Jason
If the will has been made by the Janet after marrying Jason than it can be said that Jason has no rights in the property because as per the principle states that interest arises when there is no will. The trust that has been created was verbal and it was nowhere written that Jason has the equitable interest in the property (Hudson, 2017). It clearly states that Jason has no right in the property. The will in the eyes of law considered valid and bee prioritise above resulting trust and consecutive trust. The intention is an important factor of trust and the will states that there was no intention to give the beneficial right of the property to Jason. In Lambe v Eames states that the words alone cannot create the trust and the intention also matters and the court held that there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff and it concludes that there is no trust (Douglas, 2017).
The facts in the case study that creates the trust between the Jason and Janet but as established in the case Lambe v Eames (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 267 the words are alone not sufficient to prove the trust and the will creates is the valid document that states Janet is the sole beneficiary of the property.
Do Jason Has Any Equitable Interest
An equitable interest has been made that that there has been made by virtue of an equitable title. The equitable interest has been defined as the right in equity that is protected by an equitable remedy. Equity has been defined by the judges that have been determined that what is fair and then the decision has been made the decision as opposed to deciding what is legal.
In the case of Gissing v Gissing  AC 886 House of Lords case, the case of equitable trust where husband and wife has been divorced after 31 years of marriage. The maximum purchase amount was on loan and instalments have been paid by Mr Gissing from his own money. Mr Gissing has also given allowance to her and therefore the court held that Mr Gissing is solely the owner of the property and Mrs Gissing has no beneficial interest in the property (Evans, 2015). There was nowhere has provided the assurance that have the intention of the beneficial interest in the property.
Mr Jason who is living with her wife Janet and as it was told by Janet that house belongs to both that much it belongs to her. She had also promised Jason that he has not to worry about his future. Janet had also invested some money in the property as the facts have provided him assurance in the property.
Therefore, Janet has the right of equitable interest in the property because when the equitable interest has been made than there is also the right of the property. In Gissing v Gissing case where the property there was no common intention and it has not been given beneficiary interest in the property rights. There was a common intention by Jason and Janet of transferring the property (Adamo, Klodawsky, Aubry, Hwang & Gogosis, 2018).
It can say that Mr Jason has equitable interest in the property but the principle in the case but the principle of equitable interest cannot been allowed as per the legal terms the beneficiary of the property is Miss Janet. It can be said that Mr Jason will not get the equitable interest. However, he can demand for the damages from the Court.
Type Of Remedies Jason Have
The remedies that is available to Jason that firstly he has the equitable right in the property as the there was a trust between the Janet and Jason that the property belongs to him and therefore he has done minor changes in his house. He has no idea about the Will that has been made by the Janet for her sister. The will has no legal validity because it has been made before marriage and therefore interest has been changed. In Goodman v Gallant  Fam 106 Court of Appeal case, Mrs Goodman has 50% beneficial interest in the matrimonial home. The legal title has been held by her husband. Her husband has left the home and she has made the relationship with the other person and after years they has taken (Bently, & Sherman, 2014).
Therefore, Jason has an equal right in the property that the Janet sister have and he can demand the equal rights in the property. He can also want title based on trust that has been maintained between the parties.
Secondly, he can claim for property estoppels and he has the right in the property in epical connection with the English Land Law that he has the right to use the property of the owner that can be effective in connection with disputed transfer of property. The estoppels right appear if someone gives a clear assurance that he has a right over a property. He has relied on that assurance (Handley, 2016). He has therefore acted on that assurance. It will be unconscionable to again to go back on the assurance. In Jennings v Rice  EWCA Civ 159 case, the plaintiff was used to take care of the defendant till his death. He has been promised for the property but he has not been paid anything and therefore court has awarded him with £200,000. The court states that the amount has been paid to plaintiff as per the expectation he has from the defendant (Campa, Ryan & Menter, 2016).
The facts states that Janet had given a clear assurance to Jason that they both have equal rights in the property as much rights she holds in the property. Therefore, Jason had relied on her assurance and had made minor changes in the property. It will be unconscionable to back on the assurance so it will become difficult for him to back on the assurance. The application of Jennings v Rice states that Jason has the right to demand remedies for the promise that has been made by (Janet Bow & Field, 2016).
Thirdly, Jason can demand remedies for resulting trust. The creation of an implied trust by operation of law that property is transferred to someone who does not pays anything for property. Jason has the resulting trust in the property as the facts states.
Lastly, the consecutive trust states that a property that has been holds by a person or in possession under the circumstances that he is holding for another, even though there is no formal trust agreement or document. Therefore, Jason can ask for the remedies for the consecutive trust that has been created by Jason and Janet.
It has been analyzed that Jason does not have any legal interest in the property. As per laws, Janet sister is the sole beneficiary of the property and not Jason. The will creates the right of Janet in the property as the words alone cannot make anyone trust in the property. However the facts states that the Jason has equitable interest in the property but will not create the legal interest. However, Jason can demand various remedies from the Court. The remedies like the trust that has been created between him and Janet that creates the right of him in the property. It has been analyzed that Jason can seek remedies for the properties estoppels and the rights in the property. In conclusion, from the case laws that Jason does not have legal rights in the property, as there was no certain evidence to prove by Jason that he holds right in the property.
Adamo, A., Klodawsky, F., Aubry, T., Hwang, S., & Gogosis, E. (2018). Contributing to More Equitable and Inclusive Cities?. Toward Equity and Inclusion in Cities: Lessons from Critical Praxis-Oriented Research, 8, 235.
Armfield, J. (2015). Equitable Claims and Family Provision. Elder L. Rev., 9, 1.
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). property law. USA : Oxford University Press.
Bow, M., & Field, L. (2016). Proprietary estoppel and the risks of mixing family and business. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, 84 (25)
Campa, M., Ryan, C., & Menter, A. (2016). Developing more open and equitable relationships with industry to improve advancements in clinical research in dermatology. British Journal of Dermatology, 174(6), 1365-1369.
Douglas, A. (2017). Equitable Priorities under Registered Land. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper, (5).
Evans, S. (2015). A Scrutiny of Powers of Sale Arising Under an Equitable Mortgage; A Case for Reining These in.
Gissing v Gissing AC 886 House of Lords case
Handley, K. R. (2016). The Law of Proprietary Estoppel. By Ben McFarlane [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. xxxiii+ 688 pp. Hardback Â£ 165.00. ISBN 978-0-199-69958-2.]. The Cambridge Law Journal, 75(2), 432-434.
Hudson, J. (2017). The price of coherence in estoppels. Sydney L. Rev., 39 (1).
Jennings v Rice  EWCA Civ 159
Korngold, G. (2016). Preface and Introduction to Private Land Use Arrangements: Easements, Real Covenants and Equitable Servitudes (Juris Publishing 2016).
Lambe v Eames
Martin, P. (2016). Estoppel: Binding promise without a contract: Court of appeal considers proprietary estoppel. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (23), 93.
Stack v Dowden  2 AC 432 case
Click here Order Now to get your plagiarised free custom paper