Problem Question A The first thing to be determined is whether there was a validly executed will, and if not whether under the intestacy rules there is any provision for the person. Sarah and Holder died with validly executed wills so therefore at the first look of things their properties are distributed accordingly. When it comes to jacks entitlement. Under Sarah will at first look of things nothing was left to jack. Although Sarah and her ex husband (Carl) had agreed to leave their properties to jack and made mutual wills to this effect. However wills are ambulatory in nature, a person can revoke their will as much as possible while they are alive. Wills Act 1837 S.20 ‘A person can revoke their will by writing another one’. While S18 of this act also says that ‘if you get married or civil partnership any will made prior to the marriage will be revoked’ so therefore the mutual wills made by Sarah and Carl as Jack being the legatee is revoked. There are however some exceptions that may benefit jack. Where it appears from a will that at the time it was made the testator was expecting to be married to a particular person and that he intended that the will should not be revoked by the marriage, the will shall not be revoked by his marriage to that person. Secondly another question to be asked is, did the parties intend the wills to be irrevocable? Assuming that they did they would have to be evidence in the will with the help of as solicitor; they would express their intent of the will being irrevocable Re Dale [1994] C H 31 . If any of these two exemptions was the case Jack will be entitled to all his mother properties. In Addition Under the Inheritance (Provisions for family and Defendants) Act 1975 it... ... middle of paper ... ...1984] Crabby v Arun DC Moffatt v Kazana [1969] Michael Doherty page 92 Grant v Edwards [1986] Parker v British Airways Board [1982] Waverley BC v Fletcher [1995] Armory v Delamirie (1722), Elwes v . Brigg Gas Co (1886) 33 Ch.D. 562 Rosset and Another [1990] SECONDARY SOURCES TEXTBOOKS Jenny Steele , Tort Law text case and material , 2nd edition (Oxford University Press) Michael Doherty, Equity and Trust,4TH edition, (Old Bailey Press) Smith, Roger j. Property Law 7th edition ( Harlow : Pearson, 2011) Edwards and Stockwell, Trusts & Equity, 19th edition ( London : Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) Thompson, Mark P , Modern Land Law , 5th edition ( Oxford University Press 2012) Elmer Doonan, revised and updated by Andrew J Culter Equity and trust, 16th edition Gray, Kevin & Gray, Susan F. Land Law , 7th edition ( Oxford University Press 2011)
Abbott, Martin. "Free Land, Free Labor and the Freedmen's Bureau." Agricultural History 30.4 (1956): 150-56.
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
Henry, Caleb. "Pride, Property, and Providence: Jonathan Edwards on Property Rights." Journal of Church and State 3(2011):401. eLibrary. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Sprague, D.N. (1980). Government Lawlessness in the Administration of Manitoba Land Claims, 1870-1887. 10 Man. L.J. 433 (1979-1980)
December 15, 1971.. Alternate Citation:. Public Law 92-195; 85 Stat. 649 (GPO). United States Government Accountability Office, “Bureau of Land Management”.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
pp. pp. pp Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law.
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Homestead Act." The Reader's Companion to American History. Dec. 1 1991: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.
William Sharpe, Gordon J. Alexander, Jeffrey W Bailey. Investments. Prentice Hall; 6 edition, October 20, 1998
Martine, Elizabeth A., Jonathon, Law. (2006) Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6th Ed, Oxford University Press.