Burgess v Rawnsley
An oral agreement between joint tenants for one to buy out the other's share severed the joint tenancy, even though the agreement was not carried out.
Facts
Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley, who met at a scripture rally, bought a house as joint tenants. Mr Honick hoped that they would marry and live there, but Mrs Rawnsley intended only to live in the upstairs flat, and they never married. They orally agreed that Mr Honick would buy Mrs Rawnsley's share for £750, but she later changed her mind and asked for more. Mr Honick died, and his estate claimed that the joint tenancy had been severed, so that his half share passed under his will rather than to Mrs Rawnsley by survivorship.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the joint tenancy had been severed. Lord Denning MR said that the oral agreement was sufficient to sever the joint tenancy by mutual agreement, even though it was not specifically enforceable, because it showed that both parties intended to hold separate shares. Sir John Pennycuick said that an agreement need not be enforceable to amount to severance by mutual agreement. Lord Denning also thought that negotiations which did not result in an agreement might amount to a course of dealing, but the other judges did not decide that point.
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)
- Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234
- 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.
