Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1989]


  • Mrs Rosset’s husband, the sole registered proprietor and only financial contributor to a shared estate, secured a loan against that estate
  • Mrs Rosset carried out significant work, including decorating, on the property
  • Mr Rosset (the husband) defaulted on payments
  • The bank sought repossession


  • Was Mrs Rosset entitled to stay in the property?


  • No, bank’s claim successful


  • Mrs Rosset’s work was not substantial buy diazepam xanax enough to provide her with an equitable interest in the house; only more substantial conduct such as a financial contribution to the house would have done this
  • If an interest had been found, Mrs Rosset’s regular visits would likely have constituted a finding of actual occupation which could have overridden the bank’s claim for possesion
RELATED CASE  Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 5th February 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy