Site icon swarb.co.uk

Hodgson v Marks: CA 12 Mar 1971

The plaintiff had transferred her house to her lodger, expressing it to be for her love and affection for him. The judge at first instance had held that the true intention of the plaintiff had been that she would continue to live there as before and that she owned the equity. The lodger had sold the title to the defendant who bought it with the assistance of a mortgage. He knew of her presence in the house, but not of the arrangement. The court was now asked as to the resulting position within the 1925 legislation.
Held: A registered proprietor, not being a purchaser for value and without notice of an occupier’s interests, will hold the legal estate on Trust for the occupier with no right to assign the equity.

Judges:

Russell, Buckley, Cairns LJJ

Citations:

[1971] EWCA Civ 8, [1971] Ch 892, (1971) 22 P and CR 586, [1971] 2 WLR 1263, [1971] 2 All ER 684

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g), Law of Property Act 1925 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHodgson v Marks ChD 1970
The plaintiff, an elderly widow, transferred her house into the name of her lodger, but remained in occupation of the house, on exactly the same basis as before, until the lodger sold the house and the purchaser had mortgaged it to a building . .
CitedHunt v Luck CA 1902
Dr Hunt owned properties for which the rents were collected by his agent. The land were conveyed to a Mr Gilbert, who then mortgaged them. After the doctor’s death, his personal representatives challenged the validity of the conveyance. When the . .
CitedBarnhart v Greenshields PC 5-Dec-1853
Pemberton Leigh said: ‘With respect to the effect of possession merely, we take the law to be, that if there be a tenant in possession of land, a purchaser is bound by all the equities which the tenant could enforce against the vendor, and that the . .

Cited by:

CitedUnited Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others CA 2-Feb-1996
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.262759

Exit mobile version