{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Parents in law sent a letter asking her to vacate she

Info iconThis preview shows pages 10–12. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Parents in law sent a letter asking her to vacate. She eventually went to live with her parents. 2 years later they sold the property for 4M. Susie sued them. Held: TJ: Susie did not buy a house closer to Melb, spent money on the property, gave up profession to have a child. She was awarded $600 000. COA: Parents argued that $600 000 was too excessive. Nettle J: What is the minimum that can be done to rectify the detriment? But in Giumelli the court does not seem to have been under such a restriction. The minimum equity approach is N/A to proprietary estoppel but is relevant to promissory estoppel. You do not necessarily have to have suffered financial disadvantage. No substantial correspondence is necessary. Once the estoppel is made out Susie is entitle to the proceeds of the sale. In this case there has been a considerable rise in market value of the property. The quarter share was worth $275 000 and is now $1M. TJ came up with a middle figure of $600 000. Is $600 000 disproportionate to her detriment? No, the parents were aware and although the detriment was not completely financial, there were irreversible life changing decisions (career, would have invested in their own home etc). Equities Equity of redemption (full equitable interest) – right of the mortgagor to have the property redeemed without paying back the loan. Equity of rectification – the right to have the contract corrected because it does not represent the agreement (may be an equitable interest if it relates to land – i.e. lease). 10
Background image of page 10

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Equity to set aside fraudulent transactions – There is debate as to whether this is proprietary. Equity of acquiescence (Prop estoppel) – The better view is probably that it is a mere equity and not a proprietary right. Arises through proprietary estoppel. (Inwards v Baker) Equity based on estoppel – undefined. It is a mere equity arising through estoppel and is imposed to prevent unconscionable behaviour. It is of wider consequence and may arise through any kind of estoppel. Topic 2: Co-Ownership [gambling, latin fruit, accounting stock and trade methodology, swap, Murdoch] Co-ownership – when 2 or more people are entitled to simultaneous enjoyment of the land. All have a ‘concurrent interest’. People can co-own land at land and in equity. People can co-own freeholds, leaseholds etc. There is a trend towards more co-ownership. Co-owners are not entitled to different parts of the land – they are each entitled to enjoy each and every part of the land. Each co-owner should not exclude the other co-owner from that enjoyment. 2 surviving types of co-ownership: 1. Joint tenancy a. Exists when each of the co-owners is seised of the whole of the estate or interest. Each owns (in the case of a fee simple) the whole of the fee simple. b. The interest/title is not split.
Background image of page 11
Image of page 12
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page10 / 47

Parents in law sent a letter asking her to vacate She...

This preview shows document pages 10 - 12. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online