Compose a 3000 words essay on Law problem scenario. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... As a result, Brian has sought a conveyance and with an alleged approval of Derek,

Compose a 3000 words essay on Law problem scenario. Needs to be plagiarism free!

As a result, Brian has sought a conveyance and with an alleged approval of Derek, sells off the property to Eric without the knowledge of Chloe, who also owns the property. Albert is no more, and therefore, he cannot be called up to elaborate on any unclear issues in relation with the will, such as the sharing mechanisms of the house. The acquisition and or the act of ceding ownership of the property by any of the three new owners of Acacia Garden, on condition of its being commingled with each others claim on the same attracts ‘confusion.’ Notably, in confusion, any of the three new owners of the property are commingled, and as such it cannot be split and reverted back to its original condition, before Albert had written the will. In light of this, the property is expected to retain its features as envisaged in the will, and as such the will binds the three regarding the management and use of the property. Through the will, the three of Albert’s grandchildren have legal and equitable ownership of the house (Proffatt, 1989, p.31). Legal concept and equitable ownership Chloe like her co-owners of the property have the legal and equitable ownership rights on Acacia Garden, subject to the will. Therefore, she should be entitled to any returns that may arise from the sale or use of the property. The idea of beneficial ownership, as a deviation from the precise legal ownership forms an imperative part of the English legal tradition. In Medieval times, an aggrieved party could only gain legal redress if they supported their petition with an existing legal document. Such documents were usually few and rigid and rarely served justice. In such scenarios, plaintiffs served the Chancellor with their petitions, complaining that the prevailing conditions fell beyond the scope of the general systems. In response, the Chancellor then opted to issue or retain remedy to the plaintiff depending on his judicious evaluation of the case. These verdicts eventually evolved into a structure of law referred to as equity (Ayotte, &amp. Bolton, 2011, p. 3401). Equity is a distinct body of laws that is different from the prevailing common law. From this legal concept, the current English law separates equity from legal ownership, in which case, equity permits the exploitation and gain from the property to be looked at in a different way from the legal possession of the same. Whereas Chloe and Derek retain ownership of the property, Brian would manage it and share whatever returns it yields with his concurrent owners. But despite the fact that Acacia Garden is a concurrent estate, he has refused to honour the interests of the others. According to Craig, and de Burca, (2011, p.120), the property is possessed by three persons simultaneously and as such the parties have equitable rights to it including its sale. Chloe should emphasize her role by citing the joint tenancy rule, which refers to a concurrent relationship whereby a property is owned by two or more parties simultaneously and under the same legal document. In this case the will written by decedent Albert serves as the binding legal document that should serve its purpose of ensuring the fiduciary duty plays out in the management and or sale of the property. Regardless of the sanctity of the will, Brian opts to violate and sell the property without following the due process of the law. Brian’s blatant disregard for common law presents legal challenges which may not be easily solved, especially now that he cannot be traced.