Burgess v Rawnsley (1975) Ch 42
Here a property was purchased by Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley. While the property was purchased by Mr Honick in his name, the purchase price was divided equally by Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley.
The house comprised of 2 flats, with Mr Honick occupying the downstairs flat. It was Mrs Rawnsley's intention that she would occupy the upper flat. Shortly after the contract was signed Mr Honick instructed his solicitor to have the property conveyed into the joint names of himself and Mrs Rawnsley and this occurred. At this point the legal estate and the beneficial interests were both held as joint tenants.
Lord Denning M R set out the facts: "In July 1968, being disappointed in his hopes of marriage, Mr Honick wanted Mrs Rawnsley to sell him her share in the house. He came to an agreement with her, as he thought, to buy it for £750. He went to his solicitor and said to him Mrs Rawnsley is not going to marry me, but she has agreed to take £750 for her interest. He handed the conveyance to the solicitor for him to draw up the necessary document. The solicitor thereupon wrote to Mrs Rawnsley on July 1, 1968, this letter:
Dear Mrs. Rawnsley. re 36 Queens Road, Waltham Cross.
Mr. Honick called to see us today stating that you are agreeable to convey to him your interest in this property for the sum of £750. Will you please confirm that this is so and we will then finalise the matter and ask you to call upon us to collect those moneys and to sign the final deed.
Next day, however, Mrs Rawnsley went to the solicitors and said she was not willing to sell. She was not satisfied with £750 but wanted £1,000. Mr Honick told his daughter that Mrs Rawnsley was going to ask a thousand which he was not going to pay. A few days later Mr Honick went to the solicitor and told him to leave things as they were. He asked for the conveyance back and got it. From that time onwards things went on as before, with Mr Honick in his house alone, and she in hers but both visited one another, being quite friendly. He paid all the rates and outgoings of his house. This went on for three more years until he died on October 26, 1971."
Lord Denning came to the following conclusion: "I think there was evidence that Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley did come to an agreement that he would buy her share for £750. That agreement was not in writing and it was not specifically enforceable. Yet it was sufficient to effect a severance. Even if there was not any firm agreement but only a course of dealing, it clearly evinced an intention by both parties that the property should henceforth be held in common and not jointly."
The case shows that a joint tenancy may be severed by conduct sufficient for the courts to determine that the parties no longer consider themselves to hold the property as joint tenants even though the negotiations to purchase the interest in the property were undertaken but did not lead to a finalisation.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
