Lloyds Bank v Rosset 
- 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
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 5th February 2015