We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
How many separate parties can share joint ownership of land?
Ems*Honie
Posts: 1,448 Forumite
Many thanks 
0
Comments
-
I read recently only 4 on a mortgage...0
-
Thanks poppysarah, hopefully there would be no need for a mortgage, it would be a case of us all putting an equal share in.0
-
I don't think there's any limit, but a maximum of 4 names on the LRNo reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0
-
Probably more as a result of poor database design than of any legal restriction.I don't think there's any limit, but a maximum of 4 names on the LRAfter the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
There is a difference between legal and equitable ownership. Nothing to do with database design.
There can be any number of equitable owners, but a max of 4 legal owners....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Care to spill the beans?neverdespairgirl wrote: »There is a difference between legal and equitable ownershipAfter the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?0 -
This requrires some serious delving into memory from my uni days (not my area of law, at all!)
I think it was the 1925 Acts which brought in the max 4 owners thing. This was to reduce the situation where property could be handed down as a shared ownership through the generations and you could end up with loads of owners, and need to trace them all to sell.
The difference between legal and equitable ownership - the legal owner has the title of the land or chattels. The equitable owner, also known as the beneficial owner, has the right to the benefit of the land or chattels.
Often, the two people are the same thing. If Mr. and Mrs Smith buy 40, Acacia Avenue, they are likely to be both legal and equitable owners.
If the legal and beneficial ownership are split, then the legal owner has the right to all normal ownership powers, possession, etc, except against the beneficial owner.
So the legal owner being X does not mean that he is entitled to the property entierly, if there is a beneficial owner with a claim on the equity (which doesn't mean non-mortgaged value, in this context, nothing to do with negative equity).
Trusts are examples where property is held by a legal owner for the benefit of beneficial owner(s). A trust can be set up by statute, course of conduct, wills, etc....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »This requrires some serious delving into memory from my uni days (not my area of law, at all!)
.
:rotfl:
Had me thinking back 30 years to the Property Law I learned when training as a Chartered Accountant. At least I remembered the same as you.:j0 -
We could both be wrong, of course (-:...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
-
neverdespairgirl wrote: »We could both be wrong, of course (-:
But we would each be in the best of company:D .0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards