{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

2 allowance for improvements is the lesser of the

Info iconThis preview shows pages 12–14. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2. Allowance for improvements is the lesser of The cost of the improvements The increased value of the property resulting from the improvements Comes from case of Swar v Rogers Unsure if this will continue under the new legislation. 3. The allowance made by the non-improving co-owner is proportionate to his/her share in the property Basically, if you got 70% of sale, then you owe 70% of improvement cost. 4. Improvements are expenditures which increase the value of the property – as opposed to maintenance costs Slide BELOW, get half as tenants in common (50/50), hence $10,000 from $20,000 B. EXAMPLE OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS – COMMON LAW 1. A and B are tenants in common in equal shares. 5 years ago, B carried out improvements which cost him $30,000. This increased the value of the property by $20,000. What is the maximum amount that B can claim against A for improvements? 2. The increase in value ($20,000) is less than the expenditure (30,000), so B is entitled to an allowance of $10,000 from A, being half of the amount of the increase in value– unless A had agreed to share the cost of the improvements. B. OCCUPATION RENT 1. S 233(3)PLA applies on an application for division and/or sale, ‘notwithstanding any rule to the contrary’ 2. No order for occupation rent unless Occupying CO is seeking accounting or compensation; The claimant CO has been excluded from occupation; or 12
Background image of page 12

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
13 Claimant CO has suffered detriment because it was not practicable for him or her to occupy the land. C. ACCOUNTING FOR RENTS AND PROFITS 1. Common law said that a co-owner was not required to account to other co-owners for 2. Statute of Anne 1705 allowed co-owners to bring an action against a co-owner who received more than his share 3. Henderson v Eason (1851) held the statute referred to rents and profits received from a third party and not to fruits of co-owner’s own labour. If you co-own land, and solely grow fruit and make cash, its ALL yours! We assume this relates to s. 28A of the PLA. 4. It is assumed that this rule applies to other statutory provisions for accounting between co-owners for rents and profits, eg s 28A PLA. C. SECTION 28A PROPERTY LAW ACT ENACTED 1998 1. 28A. Liability of co-owner to account A co-owner is liable, in respect of the receipt by him or her of more than his or her just or proportionate share according to his or her interest in the property, to account to any other co-owner of the property. In this section, "co-owner" means a joint tenant, whether at law or in equity, or a tenant in common, whether at law or in equity, of any property. Note: This right to account can be exercised at any time
Background image of page 13
Image of page 14
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page12 / 47

2 Allowance for improvements is the lesser of The cost of...

This preview shows document pages 12 - 14. Sign up to view the full document.

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