Severance by written notice, then survivorship (LPA 1925 ss.36(2), 196(3))
Asha, Ben and Carys bought a freehold house in Bristol, England, together as an investment. They are the registered proprietors and the transfer declares that they hold the house on trust for themselves as beneficial joint tenants. Ben and Carys live in the house; Asha lives elsewhere. On 1 September 2026 Asha signed a written notice addressed to Ben and Carys stating that she wished to sever the beneficial joint tenancy, and she pushed it through the letterbox of the house. Carys read it that evening. Ben died suddenly on 3 September 2026 without having read it. Ben left a will giving everything to his sister.
Which of the following best describes who now holds the legal title and the beneficial interests in the house?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: Legal title: Asha and Carys as joint tenants. Beneficial interests: Asha one third and Carys two thirds, as tenants in common.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A beneficial joint tenancy can be severed by written notice, validly served if left at the recipient's last-known abode; severance affects only the severing party's share, and the legal title remains joint.
Severance by written notice, then survivorship (LPA 1925 ss.36(2), 196(3))
The legal estate is always held by co-owners as joint tenants on trust, and s.36(2) LPA 1925 forbids severance of a joint tenancy of the legal estate. On Ben's death his share of the legal title passed by survivorship, so Asha and Carys hold the legal title as joint tenants. In equity, s.36(2) allows a joint tenant to sever by giving the other joint tenants notice in writing of that desire. Under s.196(3), a notice is sufficiently served if left at the last-known place of abode of the person to be served, so Asha's notice was served on Ben and Carys when it went through the letterbox, whether or not Ben read it. Asha thereby became a tenant in common of one third. Ben and Carys remained beneficial joint tenants of the other two thirds between themselves, so on Ben's death his interest passed to Carys by survivorship and nothing passed under his will. Carys holds two thirds and Asha one third, as tenants in common.
Why A is wrong: Severance by Asha affected only her own share; Ben and Carys remained joint tenants between themselves, so survivorship operated and Ben's will had nothing to pass.
Why C is wrong: Under s.196(3) a notice left at the last-known place of abode is validly served; it need not be read.
Why D is wrong: The legal title cannot be severed and passes by survivorship; it does not vest in a deceased joint tenant's personal representatives.
Why E is wrong: Asha severed only her one-third share; the remaining two-thirds survived to Carys, so the shares are unequal.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Property passing outside the will: joint tenancy survivorship and tenancy in common
Which of the following best describes what passes to Ama under Kofi's will?
Overreaching on payment to two trustees and a beneficiary in actual occupation (LPA 1925 ss.2 and 27; City of London BS v Flegg)
Which of the following best describes Margaret's position against the bank?
Order for sale between co-owners: TOLATA 1996 ss.14 and 15 factors
Which of the following best describes how the court will decide Joel's application?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.