This paper seeks to establish whether Bill had any rights either in real or personal claim over the said estate located in Luneborough. It would identify the type of remedy, if any generated consequent to the breach of Bill’s rights. It would also identify the type of enacted that recognizes the right afforded to Bill, that is if any and provide the remedies available for the protection of the rights. The next requirement would be apply the law to the facts and hand in order to establish whether Bill has any interest over the said building. Firstly, the registered owner of the building that had absolute rights over the said property was Ann. It is observed that Ann had a fee simple estate registered over the said land upon which building was constructed on. The value was said property was valued at 2 million pounds. What is unusual about this property is that the title to the land was inherited by Ann upon the death of her father though the title was not reregistered to include the name of Ann as the new title holder. Bill was promised title a flat in the building if he would remain with Ann in Luneborough and held her with the business she owned. The building was later on was charged over a loan that was acquired by Ann from a bank. Upon Ann’s death the building was acquired by the bank and Bill issued with eviction orders. First and foremost it is important that note that legally Ann had no sufficient title the said building. Upon her father’s death and the transfer of the property to Ann, she was required under law to register the new title over the said land. However she was the sole inherited person to the property so it doesn’t matter. Secondly, which comes to the main purpose of this paper, does Bill have the right to the property, and we could look at proprietary estoppel, which a legal claim for transfer rights within legal title concern with the three elements of the clear assurance they will acquire a right over property, they reasonably rely on the assurance and they act substantially to their detriment. Which in Dillwyn v Llwellyn, the father given a note to his son that stated he would get the house but they did not have the deed for conveyance even though the son did spend money on improving. Therefore by examine the fact in the case which Bill were constantly involve to the housework for Luneborough property, even before he moved in, he undertook all the work for significant improvement of the property, reroofed it, refurbished the office space on the ground floor and worked through the holidays to carry out the building work and keep the maintenance of the house, after he moved in Ana did not charge her for any rent as Bill moved second floor loft and he continued carry out further improvement and regular repairs, however above mentioned activities, Ana paid all the material costs; as in Burns v Burns the plaintiff and the defendant were living together which they did not marry each other, the house was bought by the defendant Patrick with the arrangement of Defendant’s name was on the deed and also paid the price and the mortgage, and the plaintiff was act as a homemaker carried out house duties such as cleaning and though she did pay the bill from her own earning towards household expenses, she also paid for the fittings, washing machine, the plaintiff left the defendant and claimed beneficial interest in the house. However the court held that as the lack of a financial contribution which should be related to the acquisition of the property such as the mortgage repayments, therefore she was not entitled as a beneficial interest to the property. Another important case to mention is Jones v Kernott which concerns with unmarried couples after cohabitation suing against the beneficially entitlement, Mrs. Jones paid 6,000 pounds initialed money to the property worth 30,000 pounds with the rest raised by mortgage, they shared household bills and mortgage, then they were separated, Mr. Kernott intended to buy another property and intended to use the half of the value of the old property whom shared with Ms Jones, which lead to the case held Ms. Jones contributed over 80% of the equity and with the little help of Mr Kernott financially and physically with the children they had with a result of splitting that property with 90% to Ms. Jones and 10% to Mr. Kernott, in order to produce a fair and just results. Therefore, by Compare these cases to Bill’s scenario, even though he carried out many improvement, yet he did not pay for the materials which Ana did, and the works he did would be seen as a normal builder’s job to fix things around the house and the fact that he did not pay rent, without any financial contribution towards the property, according to Burns v Burns, he would not have any beneficial interest to the Luneborough property. However there are couple of facts in the case could be arguable, first that when Bill moved in, even though Ana did not charge him rent and yet stated she did not change Bill’s low wages, cause she thought the low wage could compensate by not charging any rent by letting him live in her property, so does that mean he did contribute to the property financially, this extremely week evidence would not be enough to make him beneficially interest to the property, all in all there was no actually money transaction or any actual money towards the property come from his own wallet and housework could not contribute as financially as seen in Burns v Burns In this case Ann promised to transfer the title of the property to Bill. One may presume the existence of an oral will. However the execution and evidence requirements of an oral will must meet the conditions of that of the written will. In the sense that the evidence of the oral will must be witnessed by two competent and independent witnesses with the exception of privileged will. In the fact at hand, it is clear that the perceived oral will was not witnessed by any independent and competent witness, furthermore the oral will has a lifeline of only 3 months. Also noteworthy is that an oral will to be valid must not contradict a written will as is the case here. The promise cannot also recognize as a gift, it must be disposed within the lifetime of the deceased. Even though in the case constantly hinted that Ana would always care about Bill, considered him a godchildren, “would always look after him” showed general care and even was in the process of changing her will to leave the properties to Bill, however, without the legal procedure, it would not be a valid will and the idea would just remain as not legally enforceable. Consequent to the factors above-mentioned, there was not oral will or written will in favor of Bill furthermore there was no gift. Thus Bill does not have any interest to the said property. Cause of Action Be that as it may, Bill may still acquire the interest to the property by proving that he is and was a dependent to Ann. Bill gave up all that he had in order to work for Ann. This aspect was prevalent and recognized by all that were close to the two. Bill was thus dependent on the salary and the accommodation as provided by Ann. This aspect thus puts Bill within the legal understanding of a dependent and thus gives him the lucus standi to create a law suit in relation to the property at hand. The first suit should seek an injunction against the activities of the bank. He is to argue that Ann had no sufficient title to pass interest of the said property. Consequent to this, the bank did not acquire good title to the land. Furthermore the bank ought to have exercised due diligence and established who the registered owner of the bank. The sue should seek a permanent injunction against the activities of the bank. In Conclusion, with the facts, cases mention above, unfortunately, Bill would unlikely to have any beneficially rights to the Luneborough property based on the main reason of he did not financially contribute to the property and his name was not stated in Ana’s last written will, therefore he would not have any rights towards the Luneborough property. 1533 words Bibliography Books T. Murphy, S. Roberts & T. Flessas, “Understanding Property Law”, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012, 4th edition R. Smith, “Property Law”, Pearson Longman, 2011, 7th edition
 Murphy T., Roberts S. & Flessas T., “Understanding Property Law”, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012 , page251-258  Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) EWHC Ch J67  Burns v Burns (1984) Ch 317, 1All ER 244  Jones v Kernott (2011) UKSC 53  ibid  Burns v Burns (1984) Ch 317, 1All ER 244  Burns v Burns (1984) Ch 317, 1 All ER 244
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
Hi! I'm Amy,
your personal assistant!
Would you like to hone and perfect your paper? I'll help you contact an academic expert within 3 minuteslet’s get started