When land is transferred in law to two or more people In law it is called co-ownership. they are compulsorily held to be joint legal owners for practical considerations but in equity they are
When there is a conveyance to two or more people the most famous example being to that of a married couple but they may as well be friends or business partners.
However arguments arise when the relationship breaks down as to whom owns what.
Normally when the conveyancing documents do not expressly declare the extend of each co-owners interest in the share or they have not declared the nature and extent of their shares if the house is shared as a family home they are most likely to hold the land jointly in equal shares or yet the Court may rule according to a wide discretion that one of the partners hold a larger share than the other. This may have disastrous consequences for the co-owner who may discover that he holds very little or even no beneficial interest in the land at all. The consequences of leaving the nature and extent of co-ownership of a partner to chance may be lifelong and severe.
Co-owners may avoid such unfairness and uncertainty by agreeing together over the nature and extent of their shares in the co-owned land. This is applicable to all kinds of co-owners whether they are married or unmarried or conveyed land together for other reasons.
Nevertheless attention should be paid over the nature and extent of the beneficial interest declared since as was ruled in the cases of Goodman v gallant and ankhania v Chandegra [2012] EWCA Civ 1438 that the execution of an express declaration of trust of each co-owners beneficial interest is conclusive evidence of how the equity will be shared. It may only be varied by a later agreement or proprietary estoppel. Only a vitiating factor may set aside the declaration such as fraud, mistake or undue influence.
So it is extremely important that both partners understand the implication of such declaration since once it is agreed there’s almost no going back despite of the fact that the house was simply put for administrative reasons in joint names such as to facilitate the obtaining of a mortgage loan for the real owner and the partner never lived in the house, claimed any entitlement or contributed a symbolic amount or not amount of money and even had agreed that the beneficial interest belonged to the family of he made up a small portion of see Pankhania v Chandegra [2012] EWCA Civ 1438.
on a final note when there the trust deed declares the nature the co-owners interest eg., tenancy in common and not the extent according to Pankhania v Chandegra [2012] EWCA Civ 1438. since it is conclusive against resulting or constructive trust they will be considered to be holding the land in equal shares since there is no statement to the contrary or yet better there can be an implied trust when there is a valid express trust in place unless the trust deed is set aside for fraud, mistake, undue influence. etc.,
