Burgess v Rawnsley [1975]
Share
Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] Ch 429 deals with the co-ownership of land and the conditions for severance of a joint tenancy in a situation where there is not a domestic relationship, i.e. the co-owners are not living together in co-occupancy.
Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley were joint tenants of a property, but Mr Honick occupied the property alone. Initially, they purchased the property with the expectation that both would live there. However, it became clear later that Mr Honick intended to marry and live in the property, while Mrs Rawnsley intended to live alone in the upstairs flat. They orally agreed that Mrs Rawnsley would sell her share for £750, but she later changed her mind and sought more. After Mr Honick's death, the property was sold, and Mrs Burgess, the administratrix, sought to establish severance to claim half the sale proceeds.
Lord Denning MR, in delivering the judgment, held that there was a sufficient common intention for severance at £750, despite Mrs. Rawnsley's subsequent change of mind. Lord Denning disagreed with the reasoning in Nielson-Jones v Fedden [1975] and asserted that severance could also occur through a course of dealings.
Even without a firm agreement, a course of dealings could evince an intention by both parties to hold the property in common rather than jointly. In this case, the negotiations between Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley, coupled with their actions during the sale of the property, indicated a common intention to sever the joint tenancy.
Browne LJ noted that the absence of compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 40 (now Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3), which requires a written agreement for the disposition of interests in land, did not render an oral agreement void. Instead, it made it unenforceable in the absence of writing. Browne LJ based his decision on mutual agreement rather than a course of dealings.
Pennycuick LJ emphasised that a course of dealings is a distinct head and not a subheading of mutual agreement. He cautioned against inferring an intention to sever merely from negotiations between joint tenants regarding the sale of the property.
Eventually, the judges found that there was severance at the agreed amount of £750, and this amount was declared payable in law to the executrix of Rawnsley, which was less than half of the sale proceeds she initially sought.
Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley were joint tenants of a property, but Mr Honick occupied the property alone. Initially, they purchased the property with the expectation that both would live there. However, it became clear later that Mr Honick intended to marry and live in the property, while Mrs Rawnsley intended to live alone in the upstairs flat. They orally agreed that Mrs Rawnsley would sell her share for £750, but she later changed her mind and sought more. After Mr Honick's death, the property was sold, and Mrs Burgess, the administratrix, sought to establish severance to claim half the sale proceeds.
Lord Denning MR, in delivering the judgment, held that there was a sufficient common intention for severance at £750, despite Mrs. Rawnsley's subsequent change of mind. Lord Denning disagreed with the reasoning in Nielson-Jones v Fedden [1975] and asserted that severance could also occur through a course of dealings.
Even without a firm agreement, a course of dealings could evince an intention by both parties to hold the property in common rather than jointly. In this case, the negotiations between Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley, coupled with their actions during the sale of the property, indicated a common intention to sever the joint tenancy.
Browne LJ noted that the absence of compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 40 (now Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3), which requires a written agreement for the disposition of interests in land, did not render an oral agreement void. Instead, it made it unenforceable in the absence of writing. Browne LJ based his decision on mutual agreement rather than a course of dealings.
Pennycuick LJ emphasised that a course of dealings is a distinct head and not a subheading of mutual agreement. He cautioned against inferring an intention to sever merely from negotiations between joint tenants regarding the sale of the property.
Eventually, the judges found that there was severance at the agreed amount of £750, and this amount was declared payable in law to the executrix of Rawnsley, which was less than half of the sale proceeds she initially sought.
