Hodgson v Marks [1971]

Facts

  • Hodgson transferred her estate┬áto a third party, under the oral agreement that the house would remain with Hodgson
  • The third party then sold the estate to Marks

Issue

  • Could Hodgson remain in occupation of the house post-sale?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • Hodgson had remained in actual occupation throughout both transfers, and the benefit of the trust buy alprazolam .25 mg created by the third party constituted a qualifying interest within the meaning of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (now the Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 3, paragraph 2)
  • Hodgson’s interest therefore took priority over Marks’.
RELATED CASE  Marten v Flight Refuelling [1962]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 5th February 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy