Mortgage payments Ryan v Dries modified the law with regards to mortgage payments, cementing their position as to land. “improvements” Mr. Ryan and Ms Dries were tenants in common Ryan 6/7, Dries owned 1/7 Purchase price was $200 000 Ryan and Dries were equally responsible for a $120 000 bank loan The court held that Dries was entitled to 43% of the property (her input amount + half of the mortgage amount she was responsible for) Mr. Ryan paid off the loan (after interest, $195 000) Without offs” (e.g. occupation rent), Ryan was to be compensated “set for $97 500, the amount of mortgage repayments Dries was meant to pay However, there were set offs (Dries only lived there 10% of the time, and then, after a point, she didn’t live there at all) This set off part of the mortgage payment allowance granted in equity Occupation rent However, this net cost of improvements is offset against a for an occupier if he “rent” is the sole occupier to the other owners. This is only an offset, and cannot be independently charged. “rent” Entitlements (occupation, rent and profits) Entitlement to occupy Each co-owner is entitled to possession; if they choose not to occupy, they cannot sue for compensation unless the contract expressly stated so (Forgeard v Shanahan). If a is expressly excluded, there is a right to sue (Creswell v Hedges; Forgeard v Shanahan), this express exclusion may be behavior that is objectionable enough to amount to exclusion (Dennis v McDonald). Entitlement to collect rent Money collected by a co-owner was impressed with a trust to hold the rent on trust for all co-owners in their proportionate shares (Hutchins v Hutchins). A co-owner collecting is an agent for the group of co-owners (Ryan v Dries, relying on Strelly v Winson (1685)).
Mortgage payments Ryan v Dries modified the law with regards to mortgage payments, cementing their position as “improvements” to land. Mr. Ryan and Ms Dries were tenants in common Ryan 6/7, Dries owned 1/7 Purchase price was $200 000 Ryan and Dries were equally responsible for a $120 000 bank loan The court held that Dries was entitled to 43% of the property (her input amount + half of the mortgage amount she was responsible for) Mr. Ryan paid off the loan (after interest, $195 000) Without “set offs” (e.g. occupation rent), Ryan was to be compensated for $97 500, the amount of mortgage repayments Dries was meant to pay However, there were set offs (Dries only lived there 10% of the time, and then, after a point, she didn’t live there at all) This set off part of the mortgage payment allowance granted in equity Occupation rent However, this net cost of improvements is offset against a “rent” for an occupier if he is the sole occupier to the other owners. This “rent” is only an offset, and cannot be independently charged. Entitlements (occupation, rent and profits) Entitlement to occupy Each co-owner is entitled to possession; if they choose not to occupy, they cannot sue for compensation unless the contract expressly stated so (Forgeard v Shanahan). If a is expressly excluded, there is a right to sue (Creswell v Hedges; Forgeard v Shanahan), this express exclusion may be behavior that is objectionable enough to amount to exclusion (Dennis v McDonald). Entitlement to collect rent Money collected by a co-owner was impressed with a trust to hold the rent on trust for all co-owners in their proportionate shares (Hutchins v Hutchins). A co-owner collecting is an agent for the group of co-owners (Ryan v Dries, relying on Strelly v Winson (1685)).
real-property-notes.docx