Fantini v Scrutton & Ors

Fantini v Scrutton & Ors

The notice of severance was not served on Iris as required by section 36(2) and section 196(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925; the returned undelivered notice means there was no effective severance. The Land Registry letter did not constitute notice of severance. Therefore, the property passed to Iris by survivorship and the proceeds of sale must be paid to her estate. Costs were necessarily incurred and should be paid from the proceeds held by solicitors.

Parties
Claimant: Anthony Robert Fantini (as Executor of the Estate of Iris Mary Fantini deceased); Defendant: Angela Mary Scrutton; Defendant: Robert Mark Andrew Nesbitt (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gloria Natalie Fantini Deceased); Defendant: The Royal College of Music; Defendant: The Foundation and Friends of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Defendant: Eileen Wheeler; Defendant: Shirley Brailey; Defendant: Ian Mayes; Defendant: Valerie Cannon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts Determination of Severance of Joint Tenancy and Costs / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Severance of Joint Tenancy, Doctrine of Survivorship, Service of Notice Under Law of Property Act 1925, Costs in Probate Proceedings
Property Law Trusts and Estates Probate Severance of Joint Tenancy Doctrine of Survivorship Service of Notice Under Law of Property Act 1925 Costs in Probate Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Robert Fantini (as Executor of the Estate of Iris Mary Fantini deceased)

Claimant

Angela Mary Scrutton

Defendant

Robert Mark Andrew Nesbitt (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gloria Natalie Fantini Deceased)

Defendant

The Royal College of Music

Defendant

The Foundation and Friends of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Defendant

Eileen Wheeler

Defendant

Shirley Brailey

Defendant

Ian Mayes

Defendant

Valerie Cannon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts Determination of Severance of Joint Tenancy and Costs / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the joint tenancy of the property was severed by Gloria
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's costs should be met from the proceeds of sale

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of severance was not served on Iris as required by section 36(2) and section 196(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925; the returned undelivered notice means there was no effective severance. The Land Registry letter did not constitute notice of severance. Therefore, the property passed to Iris by survivorship and the proceeds of sale must be paid to her estate. Costs were necessarily incurred and should be paid from the proceeds held by solicitors.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the joint tenancy was not severed and the proceeds of sale pass to Iris's estate by survivorship.
  • Claimant's costs to be paid from the proceeds of sale held by solicitors.