Buy custom Legal Case essay
Family property is a crucial topic in the history of several families. Despite positive results in good management of family properties, there exist some shortcomings, especially in case of death, divorce, separation, or when one wants to accomplish personal goals using family acquired properties without the consent of other members. According to William and Kate, their case defines a different problem from their status because the property is registered under their names as co-owners of the property. In addition to this, because they have a registered partnership, each of them retains the right to prove ownership as compared to if the property was registered under one party’s name. This would mean that ownership would be legal for that person alone. Another contributing factor is that if one of the registered partners of the partnership became indebted for a specific purpose, especially cohabitation, the other partner would also be jointly involved. Finally, registered partners use an agreement to regulate their partnership, and with the compromise of such an agreement, they can seek legal action. This is different from unregistered properties because there is no agreement and so there would be no legal case if one becomes a solicitor. All these factors demonstrate the reason why it was important that William and Kate registered as a married couple owning the property. It also shows differences in the conditions for unregistered and registered properties (Chriss, 1993).
Since William and Kate had already registered their properties as a couple, there are questions to be answered concerning the issue of registration of their fringe. It is of great importance to be aware of actual standard that if both owners are on mortgage, there will be joint ownership and several liabilities in the event of a default. This means that the lender can pursue only one of the owners if he chooses to. It is equally important to be aware of what may happen if one of the owners wants to sell the property while the other partner does not, or one partner wants to fulfill his or her own desire by being secured by the co-owned property. By having such knowledge, one is able to find solution to similar legal cases he may face. William and Kate had registered their fringe under joint ownership, meaning that each registered person has the right to property regardless of him or her purchasing or owning the property. Their contributions, whether partial or full, do not determine who owns most of the property because their joint ownership gives each of them the right to make major decisions regarding the property. Legally, if one person had to make a decision, it should be with the consent of the other person because the decision made affects both parties. When it comes to the case of wife and husband, there is a Tenancy by the Entirety. In this form of property ownership, husband and wife ownthe property together. In other words, tenancy by entirety does not allow neither husband nor wife to sell their co-owned property or pursue his or her interests independently (Washington, 2000).
The issue of William and Kate can be solved under the rules of tenancy by entirety. This is because there is a possibility that when William and Kate acquired the fringe, they registered it as a co-owned property by a married couple. In this case, it does not matter whether Kate contributed more than William did because the joint ownership states that neither Kate nor William can make a decision without the consent of either one of them. For Kate to secure a loan from Better payback Bank without William’s consent creates a chance for a legal charge on Kate’s actions because William had every right to accept or oppose. It is very important to note that equity is not exercised in this case. Even though William contributed little at the beginning he had rights over every decision which was made over the house. If Kate wanted to gain using the security of the fringe, this means that both will be answerable if even if William did not benefit from it. If kate becomes bankrupt the bank will not consider her portion alone but they will confiscate all of it. This will negatively affect William hence demonstrating a situation where equity is not exercised. This means that Kate violated William’s right to ownership in her decision. The ownership of a real estate property by a married couple supports the general principle of law in the United States. In this general principle of law, there is an act on ownership of a marital property in the common law states. In this situation, without a tenancy by the entirety, couples do own marital properties in a form of joint tenants, which is similar to community property ownership. The main difference is that joint tenancy is not exclusive for married people. The alternate form is tenancy by entirety, which is reserved specifically for married couples and is available in many common law states. Tenancy by entirety is a special type of property ownership that can protect couples against creditors, especially if one spouse incurs debt or he or she declares bankruptcy. Under joint tenancy or community property arrangement, judgment can be sought against the co-owned property to give satisfaction on debts incurred by the co-owner or a spouse. On the contrary, properties owned by the entirety cannot be seized in cases of indebtedness of only one spouse (Thomas, 2009).
The difference applies when both parties are incurring the same debt because in such case protection does not apply. Generally, this proves that William had every right to be a part of decisions made regarding any property under joint ownership with Kate. This principle can be used smoothly to address the issue of William, which is supposed to guide the lawyer in all his or her proceedings because Kate did not consult him. Apart from this, he is a partner in the ownership of the fringe and so his interests should count as significant in this case. However, this general rule of property ownership may not have effect if the property was registered under tenancy in common. This is because in tenancy in common a partner can give away or sell his ownership interest of the property because he has the right to survivorship. This means that if William and Kate registered their property under tenants in common, Kate had the right to give away or sell her interest in the property, and so William would have no say. This defines the difference between tenancy by entirety and tenancy in common (Harpum & Bridge, 2012).
If William and Kate registered the fringe under tenancy by entirety, which is common in marriage couples, Kate’s security would be terminated because the debt would be hers alone and not involving William, who equally had the right to seek legal counsel on this matter. Kate is to pay the loan without William’s help because she secured the loan out of her personal interests without the consent of her partner (Waggoner, 1994).
The relationship between William and Kate shows that they were married, giving the possibility that they registered their property under the tenancy of entirety. This means that William had all reasons to fight for his rights in making decisions. In this scenario, William can claim his right to ownership by reporting this matter to the authorities especially who are concerned with dividing properties and debts. This is because in the basic principles of the family law act (script 124), the court can prevent the transfer of any family owned property to a third person if the court believes that the transfer being done is made to defeat a spouse claim. The court can also reverse the transfer that has already been made and demand for a compensation order. In any case that the fringe title was not registered, William could build a case not as someone whose decisions were not valued, but as someone suing Kate, a solicitor who wants to grab his portion without his consent.
In conclusion, William had the right to ownership and decision making in matters relating to the fringe. This is not because of his contributions but the law, which grants him equal rights in joint ownership of the property. Under the tenancy of entirety, one person cannot give away or sell his interest without the consent of the other person. The relationship between William and Kate shows that they were married, giving the possibility that they registered their property under the tenancy of entirety. Kate made an important decision alone, making it illegal according to the joint ownership conditions. This means that William had all reasons to fight for his rights in making decisions.
Buy custom Legal Case essay