Boundary Disputes arise between owners of neighbouring properties. Ordinarily such disputes arise when two parties disagree as to where the true extent of the boundary lies.

Disputes can often be triggered when one party proceeds with erecting a fence or wall believing it is on the legal normal erection boundary and the other party disagrees.

How do I know where my boundary line is?

Often parties will rely on the Land Registry plan as the document that determines a boundary line. The Land Registry plan does not determine the boundary line and the parties should divert their attention to examining their pre-registration deeds of their respective properties.

Such deeds should contain a document which outlines a transfer of the piece of land or in the alternative a clear and detailed plan with description.

It is suggested that to avoid matters escalating unnecessarily full transparency is provided between the parties so each party can inspect the neighbours’ deeds also. This can be difficult particularly if relations between the parties have deteriorated because of the dispute.

What if on inspection my neighbour and I do not agree?

If the boundary line cannot be agreed then it is suggested that both parties, with a view of controlling fees, jointly instruct a chartered land surveyor. The instructed surveyor will inspect the relevant deeds and if necessary visit the said properties to determine the boundary.

The last thing anyone wants when they are at home is a dispute on their doorstep. Disputes of this nature can strain the relationships between the neighbouring parties whilst they still line side by side. It can also transform a relaxing home into a stressful place with no rest. Therefore, careful thought and planning must be put into finding a resolution to avoid such a strain and more importantly prevent costs spiralling out of control. Legal costs have been noted by many Judges to have often outweighed the value of the land.

Here at Franklins we understand that you want a quick resolution that is also cost effective. We will work with you to provide specialist advice and ensure a full case plan is prepared to outline your options and next steps. Contact the Dispute Resolution Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email Litigation@franklins-sols.co.uk.

Marion Horsford defeated her son, Peter Horsford over a £6 million country estate to ensure she received her share.

Peter Horsford had worked on the family farm since he was a schoolboy and purportedly sacrificed his childhood to labour on the family farm. He also alleged it had been promised that the 540-acre estate would “all be his one day.”

Mrs Horsford split from her husband in 2011 and retired from the family farming partnership and requested £2.52 million from her son for her share along with £23,000.00 in past profits. Mr Horsford who had been diagnosed with dementia was unable to clarify who was due the share of the estate.

Peter Horsford’s refusal to pay his mother was on the basis that he had received a lifetime of assurances and argued if he had to pay her, he would need to sell the farm.

Mrs Horsford however argued that she wanted fairness for her three children and that her son had already benefited from his own hard work on the farm and his parents generosity over the years.

The matter went before the High Court and Judge Rosen ruled in favour of Mrs Horsford. Judge Rosen stated that although Mrs Horsford had said previously she might leave him her share she had not promised this and therefore was entitled to the share she requested.

In delivering the judgment, Judge Rosen believed there was a clear distinction between a promise and statements of intent and referenced to Mrs Horsford’s diary wherein which she made references to her “darling daughters.”

Peter Horsford however believed it was his right to inherit the whole estate and grew up on the same assurances.

He also alleged that in order to pay his mother the £2.52 million the farm may need to be sold.

Disputes such as this can strain relationships and drive families apart. If you require legal advice or assistance in disputes surrounding Inheritance Disputes and Promissory Estoppel, then please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Dispute Resolution Team here at Franklins either on 01604 828282/01908 660966 or at litigation@franklins-sols.co.uk.

Yes.

The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 is an Act of Parliament which is otherwise known as “TOLATA”. This Act gives the Court powers to resolve disputes regarding the ownership of property and land.

There are a number of reasons as to why an individual may choose to issue a TOLATA claim and below are a few examples:

1. To have your named removed from the mortgage and legal title;
2. An application made by a family member such as a parent, sibling or grandparent who wish to receive their financial interest in the property;
3. To force the sale of a property which you and the co-owner inherited from a deceased’s estate;
4. When an ex-partner refuses to leave and you wish to occupy your former family home alone.

The above are certain examples as to why an individual may wish to issue a TOLATA claim but when such a claim is issued there are three main types of application under TOLATA which can be presented to Court:

1. An application to the Court requesting an order of the sale of the property to enable one co-owner to receive their financial interest in the form of net sale proceeds;
2. A request that the Court decides which co-owner is entitled to occupy the property;
3. A request that the Court decides the extent and nature of ownership if the property is owned by two or more individuals.

Do I just make an application to Court?

As with any disputes, there is a process and the Court expect the parties to resolve matters, if possible, without utilising the Court’s resources. Before any claim is issued a Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim will need to be sent to the co-owner outlining the claim and what is sought.  Each party is under a duty to ensure that they negotiate and it is often advisable for parties to settle disputes by means of Alternative Dispute Resolution to avoid Court costs.

What happens if the co-owner refuses to cooperate?

If this comes to no avail, then the applicant will need to issue a claim under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. This involves completing a Part 8 Claim Form and producing a Witness Statement setting out their claim and what order they seek from the Court. 

In determining whether to make an order under TOLATA the Court will consider a number of factors.  Some of the factors that the Court will consider would be the intentions of the parties and in particular the reason why they purchased the property and for what purpose.  The Court will also consider if there are any occupants under the age of 18 in the property and any interests in the property such as whether there is a lender. 

If you require legal advice or assistance in enforcing the sale of a property or on TOLATA, please do not hesitate to contact Maninder or a member of the Dispute Resolution team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email Litigation@franklins-sols.co.uk.