Co-ownership 24/04/19 11:44 AM

Co-ownership
Two or more people own land at the same time.
 
Nature of Co-ownership
 Essential feature of co-ownership is unity of possession: each co-owner is
simultaneously entitled to the possession and enjoyment of all the land
 Co-ownership exists both at law and in equity (the position in equity may be different to
the position at law)
 
Structures for co-ownership
 Common law (existing in NZ):
o Joint tenancy
o Tenancy in common
 Statutory (but of little importance):
 Co-ownership under the Joint Family Homes Act 1964
 
Tenants: feudal tenants (holding land of the crown - a fee simple) not leases
 
Co-ownership can also exist in personal property, and resource consents (that are neither real nor
personal property).
Joint Tenancy 24/04/19 11:44 AM
Joint Tenancy
 Co-owners holding an interest in land as joint tenants together constitute a single owner
 They each have equal entitlement to the whole property as long as the joint tenancy
exists
 However, each joint tenant has an inalienable right to sever their "share" during their
lifetime
 Each has a prospective equal and separate share
 There must be no indication that the co-owners are each to take a distinct or separate
share in the property (i.e. no words of severance)
 
Hammersmith LBC v Monk [1992] AC 478, 492 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
A joint tenancy arises when there is a transfer of an estate in land to “two or more persons jointly so
as to make them, vis a vis the outside world, one single owner.”
 Joint tenants regarded to the outside world as one owner
 
Wright v Gibbons (1949) 78 CLR 313, 323 per Latham CJ:
The interests of each joint tenant in the land held are always the same in respect of possession,
interest, title and time. No distinction can be drawn between the interest of any one tenant and that
of any other tenant. If one joint tenant dies his interest is extinguished. He falls out, and the interest
of the surviving joint tenant or joint tenants is correspondingly enlarged.
 
Presumption of joint tenancy
S 47 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 states that there is a presumption of joint tenancy where two or
more owners of land are jointly registered. The presumption of joint tenancy can be displaced if
words of severance are used in the transfer of land, resulting in a tenancy in common.
 "Two or more persons named in an instrument as transferees, mortgagees, or owners of
an estate or interest in land must be treated as joint tenants."
 
Trusts and Corporations
 Trustees always hold property as joint tenants
 Body corporates cannot die, so at common law it was impossible for a corporation to be
joint tenants. However, Property Law Act 2007, s 72: body corporate may hold property
as joint tenant 
 
Essential characteristics of joint tenancies
 The presence of the four unities
 The right of survivorship
 
The Four Unities
Possession
 Applies in all situations in co-ownership
 All joint tenants have an equal right to possess the whole of the property
Interest
 All joint tenants must have the same interest or estate in the property in nature (e.g.
both fee simple), extent and duration
 Leek & Morlands Building Society v Clark [1952] 2 QB 788: All joint tenants must join in
conveyances of the entirety of the land (shares are different)
 Property Law Act 2007, s 214: one joint tenant can give notice to end a lease (periodic
tenancy)
Title
 Title of all the joint tenants has to be derived from the same instrument (will, deed, etc.)
Time
 Interests of joint tenants must take effect at the same time
 Exceptions for interests created by wills, trusts and declarations by deed under s.55
Property Law Act 2007
 
Right of survivorship (jus accrescendi)
 An interest in joint tenancy can't be left by will (or by intestate) - if a joint tenant dies,
their interest is extinguished and absorbed by the surviving joint tenant(s), whose
interests are correspondingly enlarged (Wright v Gibbons)
  Inherent in all joint tenancies
 Joint tenants, however, have full power to deal with their land while they are living
 
Commorientes: Death of all joint tenants simultaneously
Simultaneous Deaths Act 1958, s 3(1)(d):
Any property owned jointly and exclusively by two or more of the persons so dying shall devolve as if
it were owned by them when they died as tenants in common in equal shares.
 
Joint tenant responsible for death of another joint tenant
Succession (Homicide) Act 2007
Section 4: In this act, unless the context requires otherwise….
homicide means the killing of a person….by another person, intentionally or recklessly by any means
that would be an offence under New Zealand law…but does not include
 ( a ) a killing caused by negligent act or omission…..
killer means a person who kills a person….in any manner and in any circumstances that the person is
guilty….of the homicide….
non-probate assets, in relation to any victim, means all property passing on the death of the victim
because of any of the following transactions…
 ( e ) joint tenancies held by the victim and any other person…
victim means a person who is killed by a killer

Section 5
( 1 ) This Act replaces the rules of law, equity and public policy that prevent a killer from receiving,
becoming entitled to or claiming interests in property as a result of the death of the killer’s victim…

Section 7: Disentitlement of killers under will or intestacy

( 1 ) A killer is not entitled to any interest in property arising under a will of the killer’s victim.
( 2 ) A killer is not entitled to any interest in property arising on the intestacy, or partial intestacy, of
the killer’s victim.
( 3 ) Subject to any express testamentary direction to the contrary, any interest in property that a
killer is not entitled to under subsection (1) or subsection (2) is to pass or be distributed as if the
killer had died before the killer’s victim.
 
Section 8
( 1 ) A killer is not entitled to any property interest in any non-probate assets of the killer’s victim
which, but for this sub-section, would have passed to the killer on the death of the victim.
( 2 ) Any property interest that a killer is not entitled to under sub-section ( 1 ) is to pass or be
distributed as if the killer had died before the victim.
( 3 ) Despite sub-section ( 2 ), property that is owned in joint tenancy by the victim, the victim’s killer
and any other person (if any)devolves at the death of the victim as if the property were owned by
each of them as tenants in common in equal shares.
 
“No survivorship”
 Land Transfer Act 1952, ss 130-132; no obvious equivalent in 2017 Act.
 By the names of the joint tenants is written "no survivorship"
 Does not affect the principle of the right of survivorship
 Only with the permission of the court, can a number of trustees fewer than the full
original number act
 Offers protection to beneficiaries under trusts: trusts may not appear on the title, only
the names of the trustees
o Trusts are usually co-owned, the more trustees there are the less chance of
dishonesty or fraudulence
o Trustees are always joint tenants, but as trustees die there will only be one
trustee left with opportunity for dishonesty
o Therefore "no survivorship" ensures honesty of trustees
 
Creation of a joint tenancy
 Look at the presence or absence of the unities
 o In the absence of possession, co-ownership does not exist at all
o In the absence of another of the four unities, there may be co-ownership (e.g.
tenancy in common) but not joint tenancy
o If all four are present, it can be a joint tenancy (can also be a tenancy in common
so must look at words of instrument of creation)
 Words of instrument of creation
o In the absence of words of severance specifying what type of co-ownership
exists, the common law presumption was in favour of a joint tenancy. Confirmed
in the 1952 Act, and again in the 2017 Act
 Land Transfer Act 2017, s. 47
(1) “Two or more persons named in an instrument as transferees, mortgagees, or
owners of an estate or interest in land must be treated as joint tenants.
(2) Sub-section (1) (a) is subject to anything contrary in the instrument (b) does not
apply to Maori land…..
  Re Foley [1955] NZLR 702: Despite this presumption, the court can look behind the legal
ownership, at the interests the parties hold in equity. Can be a tenancy in common even
though the presumption is for joint tenancy.
 
Determination (ending of joint tenancy)
If you want to pass on the property by will, you must end its status of joint tenancy before you die
 
Ways of terminating a joint tenancy
 Partition/provision (see Partition section)
 Union in sole tenant (in various ways)
o By the death of all joint tenants but one (who becomes the sole owner in fee
simple)
o If all the joint tenants transfer the land to a third party
o If tenants transfer interests to one of the tenants (so they become sole owner)
o If the Court makes an order under the Property Relations Act 1976
 Severance (see below)
 
Severance
 Any joint tenant has the power to determine the joint tenancy and sever their interest it
in his/her lifetime by an inter vivus transaction
 Destroys unity of title and interest, co-ownership continues but right of survivorship
does not continue
 The tenant retains their co-ownership as a tenant in common ( e.g. if there are 3
tenants, the tenant who has severed their interest in the joint tenancy has a 1/3 tenancy
in common, and the other 2 hold 2/3 of the property as joint tenants)
 
Methods of severance
 Unilateral dealing by one joint tenant
o One joint tenant transforms his/her share into a tenancy in common
o Can transfer to themselves or to another person, sell, gift or assign their share
o “An act of one of the persons interested operating upon his own share” Williams
v Hensman (1861) 1 J & H 546, 557 per Page-Wood VC
o Wright v Gibbons (1949) 78 CLR 313
 3 joint tenants - A, B and C
 A transferred her share to B, and B transferred her share to A
 A and B both then held as tenant in common - destroyed unity of title
 C had nobody to hold as joint tenancy with, so held as tenant in
common as well
o Property Law Act 2007, s 56
 Mutual agreement of all the parties (express agreement - operates in equity)
o “Secondly, a joint tenancy may be severed by mutual agreement.” Williams v
Hensman (1861) 1 J & H 546, 557 per Page-Wood VC
o Joint tenants can sever the joint tenancy by transferring the property to
themselves as tenants in common
o Severance effective in equity before it is even registered
 o Burgess v Rawnsley (see below)
 Course of dealings (implied agreement)
o “And, in the third case, there may be a severance by any course of dealing
sufficient to intimate that the interests of all were mutually treated as
constituting a tenancy in common.” Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 J & H 546, 557
per Page-Wood VC
o Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] 1 Ch 429
 Purchased a house together as joint tenants
 Mr Honnick (?) wanted to marry Rawnsley, she refused, he tried to stop
her moving in but she did anyway
 Entered into oral agreement for her to sell her share. She then refused
to sell, Mr Honnick then died
 His daughter, Mrs Burgess, claimed half the house claiming H and R had
severed the joint tenancy, and they held it as tenants in common (so his
share could pass to B after death)
 Court held that the later negotiations to sell severed the joint tenancy so
therefore they were tenants in common and B could inherit
 Acquisition of one joint tenant of a greater interest in the land than the other joint
tenants
 Severance by bankruptcy destroys unity of title - Insolvency Act 2006
 Under the provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976
o Court can make an order vesting the co-owned property in such shares as the
court sees fit
 
Severance at law or in equity
An alienation may be effective in law or in equity. A transaction will be effective at law if the
registration of all the appropriate instruments has taken place - the legal title will then be held as a
tenancy in common. Where this has not occurred, a transaction may still sever the equitable joint
tenancy, with the result that the co-owners hold the legal title as joint tenants on trust for the
beneficial owners, including the tenants in common.
 Must look at the severance in equity (not registered) as well as the severance in law (on
the title)
 Fleming v Hargraves [1976] 1 NZLR 123.
o F worked for accountants and took money from a client
o To avoid scandal, they extracted a deed from him where he transferred his
property to his employers including a house he owned in a joint tenancy with his
wife
o The transfer was not registered on the title
o Employers said the deed severed the joint tenancy, which the court held that it
did in equity (but not at law)
Tenancy in Common 24/04/19 11:44 AM
Co-owners holding undivided shares in the property, where each has a present entitlement to a
distinct share.
 
Nature and Characteristics
 Only unity of possession required
 Each is an owner of a separate estate (separate interest in the property)
 Distinct shares, may hold in equal or unequal shares (affects monetary dealings)
 No right of survivorship, so property may be left by will
o U-Needa Laundry Ltd v Hill (2000) 4 NZ ConvC 193,177
o Roberts v Rodney District Council (2001) 4 NZConvC 193,311
 
Creation
 Severance of a joint tenancy
 Expressly, by a disposition that includes words of severance, indicating the co-owners
are to have separate shares in the property
o Words of severance: words indicating that it is the co-owners are to take
separate shares (ie.g. meant to be a tenancy in common) - e.g. inequal shares, to
be divided between, sole and separate use, between, amongst, equally, share
o Court can also look if it was intended to be a joint tenancy even though there
are no words of severance
o Austin v Austin (1908) 27 NZLR 1099
 Homemade will, left property to his wife and daughter as "joint tenants
in equal shares for their sole and separate use"
 "in equal shares for their sole and separate use" are words of severance
 Held that they were joint tenants, as testator expressed a desire that
they were joint tenants and had right of survivorship
 Words of severance ignored
 By an implication of equity, imposing a tenancy in common on the beneficial interest in
property held at law as a joint tenancy
 
Equity
Equity may recognise tenancy in common behind the title. Equity prevails over common law. Even if
the legal title is a joint tenancy, equity can step in and recognise tenancy in common. Situations:
 Two or more persons purchase land with unequal contributions . In this case, they will
take the shares as tenants in common
o E.g. A & B buy land together, contribute different monetary amounts. On the
title they are registered as joint tenants, equity presumption is that they hold as
tenants in common due to unequal contributions towards purchase
o Delehunt v Carmody
o Can be rebutted if it is established that the parties intended te be joint tenants
 A person who is not on the title (non-legal owner) contributes money to the purchase
price, presumption of equitable tenancy
o Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234
 Mother and son who both contributed money towards the property
 Son contributed more than the mother
 Only the son appeared on the title
 After the son married, they moved in with the mother
 Relationships deteriorated and the son served an eviction notice on the
mother
 He said she was not the legal owner
 She said she was an equitable co-owner due to contributing money, and
could not be evicted
 Held that mother and son were equitable co-owners
o Currie v Hamilton [1984] 1 NSWLR
o Malcolm v King [1992] NZFLR 193
 Purchaser contributed unequally but registered on the title as joint
tenants
 HC thought that they had not thought about joint tenancy properly, did
not have a proper intention for joint tenancy
  So therefore a tenancy in common
 Two or more person lend money on mortgage . Equity presumes they hold security as
tenants in common, as the right of survivorship has no place in business, even if they
contribute in equal shares
o re Foley [1955] NZLR 702
 Two sisters, owned land as tenants in common in equal shares
 Sold the land to their nephew
 No money changed hands - their nephew would in exchange grant them
a mortgage
 This mortgage was presumed to be held by them as joint tenants
 One sister died - did the other sister get her share?
 No, because no right of survivorship
 Partners purchase land as part of their partnership assets - right of survivorship has no
place in business
 Other situations
o Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia-MPH Ltd [1986] AC 549
 2 independent companies (not in partnership) agreed to lease a floor of
an office block
 Lease granted as joint tenants
 1 business had 40% of space, the other had 60%
 Later argument re how much space they had
 One business wanted lease sold, how would the proceeds be divided
(joint tenants = equal)
 Due to the 40-60 ratio, court held that in equity they held it as tenants in
common in unequal shares

Determination (ending of tenancy in common)

 Union in a sole tenant
o All the shares are acquired by one person
o The co-ownership ends
 Conversion into a joint tenancy
o Done by deed under Property Law Act 2007, s 55
Partition 24/04/19 11:44 AM
Partition (or division)
  Partition is the division of the co-owned land into separate parcels held in severalty by
the individual owners (cutting the land into several pieces , owners become individual
owners of separate pieces of land)
 Destroys the unity of possession and is therefore a means of terminating either a joint
tenancy or a tenancy in common
 
Methods of partition
 Voluntary partition - if the parties agree, they go through the proper processes
(requirements of s 24 PLA 2007)
 Compulsory partition - if the parties don’t agree
o Property Law Act 2007, ss 339 – 343
 
Orders available
Property Law Act 2007, s 339:
339. Court may order division of property—
(1) A court may make, in respect of property owned by co-owners, an order—
(a) for the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the co-owners; or
(b) for the division of the property in kind among the co-owners; or
(c) requiring 1 or more co-owners to purchase the share in the property of 1 or more
other co-owners at a fair and reasonable price.
(3) Before determining whether to make an order under this section, the court may order the
property to be valued and may direct how the cost of the valuation is to be borne.
(4) A court making an order under subsection (1) may, in addition, make a further order specified in
section 343.
 
Who can make an application
Property Law Act 2007, ss 4, 341(1).
341. Application for order under section 339(1) —
(1) An application for an order under section 339(1) (and for any related order under section 339(4))
may be made by all or any of the following people:
(a) a co-owner of any property
 
Relevant considerations
Property Law Act 2007, s 342:
342. Relevant considerations—
A court considering whether to make an order under section 339(1) (and any related order under
section 339(4)) must have regard to the following:
(a) the extent of the share in the property of any co-owner by whom, or in respect of
whose estate or interest, the application for the order is made:
(b) the nature and location of the property:
(c) the number of other co-owners and the extent of their shares:
(d) the hardship that would be caused to the applicant by the refusal of the order, in
comparison with the hardship that would be caused to any other person by the making
of the order:
(e) the value of any contribution made by any co-owner to the cost of improvements to,
or the maintenance of, the property:
(f) any other matters the court considers relevant.
 
Ancillary orders
Property Law Act 2007, s 343:
343 Further powers of court—
A further order referred to in section 339(4) is an order that is made in addition to an order under
section 339(1) and that does all or any of the following:
(a) requires the payment of compensation by 1 or more co-owners of the property to 1
or more other co-owners:
(b) fixes a reserve price on any sale of the property:
 (c) directs how the expenses of any sale or division of the property are to be borne:
(d) directs how the proceeds of any sale of the property, and any interest on the
purchase amount, are to be divided or applied:
(e) allows a co-owner, on a sale of the property, to make an offer for it, on any terms the
court considers reasonable concerning—
(i) the non-payment of a deposit; or
(ii) the setting-off or accounting for all or part of the purchase price instead of
paying it in cash:
(f) requires the payment by any person of a fair occupation rent for all or any part of the
property:
(g) provides for, or requires, any other matters or steps the court considers necessary or
desirable as a consequence of the making of the order under section 339(1).
 
Cases
Polden v Rowling [1958] NZLR 31
 Orchard that could be physically divided (PLA s 342(b))
 However, financial detriments by division (PLA s 342(d))
Fleming v Hargreaves [1976] 1 NZLR 124
 Land concerned residential property that could not be physically divided (PLA s 342(b))
Stewart v Stewart (unreported, HC, Christchurch, M12/91, 10 October 1991, Roper J).
 Hardship: disappointment to not be living on that land, held not to be a hardship (PLA s
342(d))
Bayly v Hicks [2013] 2 NZLR 401
 2 sisters arguing over a property
 Court rejected the proposal of both sisters, put forward a suggestion of their own as to
what could be done
 One of the sisters rejected the proposal
 Held to be imprudent for the judge to continue making suggestions
Rights of co-owners as between themselves
24/04/19 11:44 AM
Basic principles
 All co-owners have unity of possession - equal right to enjoyment of the whole property,
and equal right to occupy, use and enjoy all the land
 Right not to be evicted: a co-owner in possession cannot be evicted by the others - Bull v
Bull [1955] 1 QB 234
 
Difficulties may arise when co-owners want to do different things with the property:
 
Expenditure by one co-owner
 One co-owner spends their own money to improvements to the property, and then
seeks to recover money from the other co-owner
 Generally, the co-owner cannot compel the other to contribute towards costs where
they have voluntary contributed their money (Leigh v Dickeson (1884) 15 QBD 60)
o Only covers spending that has not been agreed to by all co-owners
o If they have agreed, a contract is formed and the co-owners contribute equally
 Contract or merely promise without consideration (which cannot be
enforced)?
 During the course of the co-ownership, there can be no recovery of money voluntarily
spent by a co-owner without the agreement of the other co-owner(s)
 However when the co-ownership comes to an end, the co-owner who has spent the
money is entitled to an allowance to the extent that the value of the land has increased
because of that expenditure
o At the end of the co-ownership, there is an equitable accounting if the value of
the land has increased. Not if the value of the land doesn’t increase
Re Pavlou (a bankrupt) [1993] 3 All ER 955
Foregeard v Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206
 
Improvements v Maintenance
 Can be difficult to decide what is improvement and what is maintenance
 E.g. repairing a leaky roof - increases worth and improves the property, but is also
maintenance by fixing the roof
  Maintenance = sustains the property (keeps it as it is, so there is not a decrease in value)
Deeks v Deeks [1988] 1 NZLR 664
 Spa pool, decking
 Improvements of a reasonably substantial and lasting nature
Long v Moore (1989) 1 ConvC 190,239
 Distinction between maintenance and improvements, should be allowance for payment
of repairs and mortgage interest (things that have sustained the property but not
improved its value (PLA s 342(e))
 Adjustment of accounts should include effective maintenance (of a substantial nature,
not trivial or periodic maintenance)
 If a co-owner uses the property more, it is fair enough that they pay an extra share of
the maintenance
 

Amount recoverable
 Maximum amount recoverable is the amount that the person has actually spent, even if
the improvement is a lot more than the person spent (the difference is split evenly
between co-owners)
 Boulter v Boulter (1898) LR (NSW) Eq 135
 
The ‘occupation fee’ - when there is one co-owner in sole possession
 All co-owners have equal rights to possession and enjoyment, but some co-owners may
use the property more than others
 The absentee co-owner may think since they don’t use the property at all, they should
be entitled to a fee from the co-owner who is using and occupying the property
 General rule: impossible to demand an occupation fee from the occupying co-owner
o Co-owner who is using the property and is entitled to exclusive possession
shouldn’t have to compensate the other co-owner, who could use the property
if they wished
o McCormick v McCormick [1921] NZLR 384
  A co-owner may let out his or her share to a third party ~ U-Needa Laundry
 
Exceptions to the general rule:
Ouster
One co-owner has actually excluded the other and wrongfully prevented him/her from having use of
the common property - an ouster (one person ousts the other from the property)
 If the occupier has secured sole enjoyment by an ouster of the co-owner(s), he or she
may be liable in trespass for damages
 Covers destruction of the property where one person is forced out, or the complete
exclusion of a co-owner from possession (Jacobs v Seward (1872) LR 5 HL 464)
Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234
 A co-owner in possession cannot be evicted by the other(s)
Ferguson v Miller [1978] 1 NZLR 819,
 2 co-owners of a common driveway
 One co-owner wanted to seal the driveway, the other owner sought an injunction as the
sealing would count as an ousting
 Although there would be inconvenience, it did not amount to an ousting
 
Liability for occupation rent
 There remains an equitable jurisdiction in the court to consider whether the
circumstances of sole occupation by one co-owner during the course of the co-
ownership give rise to a liability to pay an occupation rent
Dennis v McDonald [1982] 1 All ER 590
 De facto relationship which broke up when Dennis left McDonald because of his violent
behaviour
 McDonald stayed in the house, paid off the mortgage and rates
 Dennis tried to charge an occupation rent for the period he lived in the house by
himself, as he was violent which prevented her from living there
 She succeeded in obtaining an occupation rent as she hadn't left voluntarily, but had to
leave because of the threat of violence, would be unreasonable for her to exercise her
right to occupy
One co-owner received more than his/her share of rents or other revenues
 If not all the co-owners have physical possession, all of the co-owners are entitled to
rents and profits in the land in relevant shares (joint tenancy = equal shares, tenants in
common = equal or unequal shares)
 Where one co-owner has received more than their share of the rents or revenues from
the property, there is a liability to account for the excess so received to the other co-
owners
 Now part of the wider equitable accounting between co-owners
 Does not count where one co-owner is leasing his/her share to a third party
 Henderson v Eason (1851) drew a distinction between rents and other revenues received
from a tenant or third party, which must be accounted for, and profits a co-owner might
make through their use and occupation of the co-owned property, which they may
retain
 
One co-owner occupies and uses the common property under some agreement with the other
whereby the occupying owner becomes the bailiff or agent of the other so that he/she must
account to him/her for his/her share of the profits.
The occupier must account to the other(s) for the appropriate share(s) of the profits. There is no
fiduciary relationship between co-owners from which any such duty can be implied without an
agreement.
 
One co-owner occupies the common property as the tenant of the other’s share, and owes
him/her rent accordingly.
Rent will be payable during the tenancy, but the landlord-tenant relationship does not affect their
ongoing joint tenancy and co-ownership rights in relation to the fee simple.
Individual ownership in common 24/04/19 11:44
AM
In co-ownership, there is usually a connection between co-owners (e.g. family, spouses). There are
also people who are complete strangers who live on a property and do not want to share co-
ownership, where for example there is a single building with different flats.
 
There are several different ways to do this:
 
Horizontal subdivision
 Airspace is part of land, so land can be divided up through its airspace
 Rare as very complicated - questions re stairs, electricity, drainage etc.
 
Company lease
 Company formed to own the land, the number of shares matched the number of units in
the building
 Each owner owned one share, and the right to occupy one unit
 Disadvantages:
o Right to occupy arises from a licence, so you cannot get indefeasibility of title, a
mortgage
o General rules about companies can cause problems: majority shareholders can
change the constitution to disadvantage minority shareholders
 
Cross-leases
 Councils had rules re subdivisions, but cross-leases did not count as subdivisions
 Now cross-leases do count as subdivisions
 Example: 3 flats, all individually owned. All 3 owners tenants in common of the entire
property, enter into mutual leases - all 3 lease to each person
o Each tenant owns a defined share as tenant in common and a leasehold estate
in his/her flat with exclusive possession
 Causes many legal problems
 
Unit Titles
 Unit Titles Act 2010
 A plan will be deposited in the Land Transfer Office showing exactly what is the unit
owned by each person
 Each individual owner will have a "stratum estate in freehold"
 Body corporate runs the building, often with a professional manager running several
blocks of flats
 Problem: expense and difficulty of running body corporate
 
Ownership Flats
 
Other:
Joint Family Homes
 Old statutory form of co-ownership
 Joint Family Homes Act 1964
 Offered spouses protection against unsecure creditors and exemptions from certain
property taxes
 Family benefit (does not exist anymore)
 Not nearly as much advantage today as there was, abolition was recommended
 
Retirement Villages
Several ways of organising:
 Self-contained units with common access to community facilities
 Self-contained flat in larger building
Retirement Villages Act 2003 doesn’t prescribe one ownership method
Causes problems to arise
 
Timeshares
 Replacements for batches
 Right to the exclusive use of a unit, building or part of building, and associated facilities,
for a specified time that occurs every year
 Associated right to exchange your share with other people, swapping times etc.
 Part of a commercialisation of recreation, run by paid managers and staff
 Complex legal arrangements - for each individual unit, there is a unit title and cross-
leases against these unit titles