 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bringing forth new efficiency and unparalleled results to research efforts. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
• FAMILY
England and Wales High Court (Civil Division) Ansari v Ansari & Ors Appeal by wife against a previous appeal overturning the setting aside of a charge on her matrimonial home after her husband left the home and sold it to another couple. In the present case, the husband left the matrimonial home, which was in his sole name, and the wife registered her rights under ss30-33 of the Family Law Act 1996. The husband then proceeded to sell the house although the wife remained in occupation. The wife then started proceedings to prevent the husband dealing with the sale proceeds but did not seek any relief against the mortgage bank's charge. District court set aside the sale and the charge as a reviewable disposition under s37 of the MCA 1973. On appeal, Circuit Court allowed the bank's appeal against setting aside the charge. Hence, present appeal. Held, transaction was not a reviewable disposition as only dispositions made by the respondent to the ancillary relief proceedings (ie the husband) can be reviewed. Secondly, even if it was a reviewable disposition, the Bank had acted in good faith (under s 37(4)) and notice of the wife's rights was not the same as notice of the husband's intention to defeat her claims. Finally, the charge could not be set aside as a consequence of setting aside the sale, again as the bank had acted in good faith. England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Webster v Webster Application by mother for declaration of beneficial interests in a house and some shares on the basis of survivorship and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. The applicant was the deceased's long time partner, who died intestate, and mother of two of his children. Applicant was claiming a beneficial interest in the family home, though it was in the deceased's name, and some shares of the company that her partner worked for which had been purchased using a mortgage on the home. She claimed to have contributed to mortgage payments and improvements to the home. Held, applicant did not have a beneficial interest in the property nor in the shares because there was a lack of any common intention. The intestacy did not provide sufficiently for the applicant under the Inheritance Act and the home was transferred to her mortgage free so as to facilitate a clean break. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
