Bull v Bull
A beneficial tenant in common is entitled to occupy the property, and the legal owner could not evict his mother, who had contributed to the purchase.
Facts
A son and his mother bought a house together, both contributing to the price, but the house was conveyed into the son's sole name. They lived there together. When the son married, disputes arose between his mother and his wife, and the son gave his mother notice to quit and sought possession.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the son was not entitled to possession. Denning LJ said that, since both had contributed, the mother and son were equitable tenants in common, and each was entitled to the possession of the land and to the use and enjoyment of it in a proper manner. The son, as legal owner, held on trust for both of them, and could not turn his mother out. Rights of occupation are now governed by sections 12 and 13 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Related cases on co-ownership and trusts of land
- Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages Ltd v Bell [2001] 2 FLR 809
- Barca v Mears [2004] EWHC 2170 (Ch)
- Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] Ch 429
- Re Citro (A Bankrupt) [1991] Ch 142
- Re Draper's Conveyance [1969] 1 Ch 486
- First National Bank plc v Achampong [2003] EWCA Civ 487, [2004] 1 FCR 18
- Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam 106
- Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
