I’m sorry if I’ve come to the wrong place. My question is a mix of both property and Life Estates/Tenancy
I’m driving myself around the bend trying to work something out with regards to life tenancies/estates/remainders or reversions.
Can someone please help explain something to me?
Our freehold property which I will call No 2, has a deed from 1927 which reads below:
The Vendor was immediately before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty six entitled during her life to the possession of the hereditaments hereby conveyed AND WHEREAS the Trustees were at that time the persons who under the same settlement were the trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925 AND WHEREAS by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act 1925 the hereditaments hereby conveyed became on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty six vested in the vendor in fee simple at law AND WHEREAS by a vesting deed dated fourth day of November one thousand nine hundred and twenty seven and made between the Trustees of the first part and the vendor of the other part the trustees declared that the hereditaments therein mentioned (being the hereditaments hereby conveyed) were vested in the Vendor upon the trusts and subject to the powers and provisions upon and subject to which under the settlement the same ought to be held from time to time And that the Trustees were the Trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925 AND WHEREAS the vendor in exercise of the power in this behalf conferred on her by the Settled Land Act 1925 as tenant for life of the hereditaments hereby conveyed has agreed to sell the unincumbered fee simple in possession of the said hereditaments to the Purchaser at the price of two hundred pounds
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH as follows:-
In consideration of two hundred pounds paid by the Purchaser by the direction of the Vendor to the Trustees (the receipt of which sum the Trustees hereby acknowledge) the Vendor as Beneficial Owner in exercise of the power in this behalf conferred upon her by the said Act and of every other power her hereunto enabling hereby conveys unto the Purchaser ALL that messuage or dwellinghouse and garden with the rights easements and appurtenances thereto belonging situate at … TO HOLD the same unto the Purchaser in fee simple
So far as regards the remainder or reversion expectant on the equitable estate of the Vendor in the hereditaments hereby assured and the title to and further assurance of the same hereditaments after her death the covenants on her part implied by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall extend only to the acts and defaults of the Vendor and persons now or hereafter claiming through or in trust for her
I’m trying to work out what it all means if she is the life tenant and then mentions remainder or reversion expectant on the equitable estate.
If Annie is the Life Tennant selling to George in 1927, what are the implications when George sells to Doris in 1950?
How would you know if the above life tenancy has been brought to an end before Annie dies or when George sells to Doris in 1950?
In 1927 when Annie is selling property No 2 to George, she also sells her property No 1 to George.
If the tenant of No 1 is in occupation on a part of the land or property of No 2, is the above suggesting after her death that part occupied by No 1 will revert back to property 2?
We own freehold property No 2, with a part that No 1 have occupied since the 1900’s and i’m trying to understand if it relates to the above
It would appear legal title to the land was held by “Annie” as tenant for life under the Settled Land Act 1925.
She had the power of sale under that Act and, provided that the Settled Land Act trustees were party to the conveyance on sale, the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust were transferred to the proceeds of sale, and the property freed from the terms of the trust.
Having purchased the property from “Annie” in 1927 “George” and his successors in title should have no interest or ongoing connection with the trust of which “Annie” was tenant for life.
Hopefully, the above settled concerns as regards the 1927 sale. However, as regards the consequences of the use of properties No.1 and No.2, the answer may require a detailed review of both the land titles and the use of the land since 1900.
Paul Saunders FCIB TEP
Independent Trust Consultant
Providing support and advice to fellow professionals
Thank you so very much for your kind reply and explaining that to me.
Can I please just re-cap your reply, to make sure I fully understand what you are saying:
The trustees were party to the conveyance on sale, so this would mean the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust were transferred to the proceeds of sale, and the property freed from the terms of the trust. Thus meaning George and his successors in title should have no interest or ongoing connection with the trust.
Annie was a Tennant For Life In Possession but one of the deeds say the property was in the occupation of Mr Taylor.
Is this suggesting Annie is allowed to take the rents from the property until she dies & it’s not suggesting she lives in the property until she dies?
Apologies for my lack of intelligence here, I assume this means George and his successors have no claim in any money arising from those profits? That is purely personal to Annie and the Trust/Trustees?
I do agree that a detailed review of both the land titles and the use of the land since 1900 is definitely required… can I just quickly ask, in your opinion…
is the wording of remainder or reversion expectant purely to do with the trust/life tenancy or could it have some relevancy to the uses of property 1 & 2 and that is why you also recommend a detailed review of both the land titles?
I notice you said it would appear legal title to the land was held by Annie. In 1927 she held legal title to a section of land/building. When we purchase our property it includes this section even though property No 1 is in occupation and believe they have been since at least approx 1910.
The LR have updated No 1’s title plan siting a mistake but I genuine believe the deeds clearly show this has alwys been on the Land of No 2. I don’t know if relavent but I learn Annie dies in 1987.
On George becoming the new owner of the property in 1927, the link between the property and the trust was severed so that, unless the terms of the contract for sale provided otherwise (which would have been unusual), George had no claim or any ongoing interest in the trust, and the trustees and Annie would have no ongoing claim or interest in the property or against George. The sale should have effected a “clean break”.
As a tenant for life, Annie was entitled to occupy, or to let and receive the rents from, the property sold in 1927. Upon completion of that sale, though, Annie had no further right to ether occupy or receive any rents. If the property was let to a third party at that time, the rent payable after completion would then have been due to the new owner - George.
As regards the last question, whilst I believe the wording referred to relates to the trust/tenancy for life only. There was an element of common use/occupation of the two properties. Accordingly, I believe it would be inappropriate for any adviser to venture an opinion without having the opportunity to understand the situation in detail, hence the suggestion in the final paragraph of my earlier post.
Paul Saunders FCIB TEP
Independent Trust Consultant
Providing support and advice to fellow professionals
It sounds so confusing but think I understand what you are saying.
I’m trying to work this puzzle out and desperate to understand what has occurred.
Do you have a website where this would be something you may be willing to take a deeper look at or can you recommend anyone?
I can provide an overview of the use of the land since 1900 for both land titles and have copies/transcripts of the wills/conveyances/vested deed.
I completely understand if not.
May I pick your brains on three further questions?
If there has been a “clean break” and Annie would have no ongoing claim or interest in the property, what does it mean when it says 'further assurance of the same hereditaments after her death? Why is her death relevant to the herditaments?
Upon completion of this sale in 1927 to George are you saying she is ending her life tenancy or can she sell to George but keep her life tenancy even though she has no further interest in occuppying or receiving rent?
In 1927 can George do whatever he wants with the legal title/land of the property and even give part of it to another property he owns, if he so chooses?
Please don’t be mad at me as I understand this is a forum for professionals and I obviously am not.
I am trying to reach out to people who know exactly what this means.
As there was common use/occupation of the two properties in 1927 when these things were being written in deeds/wills etc, I don’t know if it’s a solicitor or someone who knows about trusts etc I would require.