On Fixtures If by degrees an object is only slightly attached or merely resting on.

It s probably a chattel like the trailers in Queen v McKinnon. If the purpose is to enhance land and there is a high degree of annexation, Then it s more a fixture like the cemented bin in McDowell v Nykoliation On Owners If you have a remainder interest or some sort of fee You have vested ownership as in Stuartburn v Kiansky Covenants Valid covenants generally run in rem with the land Items such farming only and single residences are allowed to stand But any condition that disallow alienation the law abhors Like limiting who is allowed to build as in Fuji Builders v Tresoor. Rule of Repugnancies The rules of interpretation look for clear gifts in reading a will All repugnant conditions afterwards are revoked ala Re: Hornell Shelley s Rule: When a will gives to A and then their heirs without naming names Shelley and the rule of construction eliminates the games And the life estate and remainder are lumped in a single yard, Unless the chain is broken or conditional as in Re: Rynard Determinable Life Estates If a will says you can stay while, or during, then it may be defeasible And you hope the wording is valid as your stay may be determinable But the law prefers a condition subsequent if a term is uncertain. As your life estate remains like the ill housekeeper in re: McCogan Life Estate Duties: A life estate holder without permission can only expenses incur, Those needed to maintain the property as in Buhr V Buhr A legal life estate holder must pay to taxes to their municipality

As was required of the depression era granny in Mayo v Leitovski. A legal life estate older may not mortgage without the remainder s tick, Such as renovating a duplex to rent as in re: Chupryk, Waste: If a change is trivial or ameliorative and improves the land It is not actionable as Blackburn said in Doherty vs Allman. Or if the use becomes unviable and the neighbourhood is changing Then removing a structure may be allowed as in Melms v Pabst Brewing. You may not deplete resources unless a remainder man or court told you could, Or if for waste you are unimpeachable according to Honywood v Honywood. But even unimpeachable tenants can t be malicious with wanton disregard As unconscionable conduct is equitable waste in Vane v Bernard. The law of property act says that almost any permissive waste or inaction, If it s detrimental to a later interest can lead to damages or an injunction. The courts may be reluctant to treat landowners like indentured pawn, And force them to maintain their property like the grow op in BC v Onns. Homesteads: Unless there is an explicit agreement, there is no release from dower, As a second wife to her dismay found out in Menrad v Blower. Homesteads used to require land and apartments the courts would decline, The act now includes condos to save widows from the fate of Re-Ripstein. Adjunct properties with a unified use may be included in the mix, But adjacent lots with rentals were excluded in Re: Ostapowicz. An attached business in a garage or rented room could be okay, As long as it remained primarily a home as in re: Empey. Once granted a homestead life estate on an farm, those rights are stuck, Neither rezoning nor a remainder s share matter as in re: Melnychuk. You cannot mortgage a homestead without your spouses consent, But if you lie and do then you still are screwed as in Reep v Schuckett. In the past, with dower laws creditors rights often took priority,

A wife wouldn t get her dower until she settled as in Chrichton v Zelinitsky. As of now the homestead can t be mortgaged in life until your spouse votes, And in death the survivor gets a protected life estate as in Michael Bruce Coates. You can contract out of homestead rights by taking prenuptial steps, By fully disclosing all facts and terms in an agreement as in Stern v Sheps. As once homestead rights crystallize they take a while to recant Your interest is unsellable for 3 years as in Hildebrandt v Hildebrandt. And your spouse s creditors will wait until you sell to take their split, You may be a co-owner with a bankruptcy trustee as in re: Chisisk. Joint Tenancy: If you want Joint tenancy and not tenants in common, Be very clear as jointly may not be sufficient as found in McEwen. As the meaning of jointly to testators may be in want, And seen as giving it evenly to sons without unity as in re: Dupont. Joint tenants won t owe rent to each other unless they struck An agreement, an agency, or exclusion as in Osachuk v Osachuk Really the only money one joint tenant can demand, Is when one unjustly rents to others as declared in the statute of Anne. Nor do you have a right to rewards if the other labour on, Such as raising crops or sheep as in Henderson v Easton. You can recover for repairs that you are requested to spend money on, Or if you are an agent in a business according to Leigh v Dickson. Otherwise for taxes, insurance, and principle you wait to sell, And then you recover half against the proceeds as in McCaskill v McCaskill. If for the cost of hydro and upkeep you seek a little payola, You ll have to pay occupational rent as in Szuba v Szuba. Severing Your Tenancy, You get a right of survivorship if your joint tenant dies all natural But its severed in Manitoba if you kill them as in Novak v Gatien et all. But in Ontario you become a trustee if convicted of their Murder, Behind bar you will hold their heir s interest like in Shobelt v Barber.

If you want to sever up your joint tenancy in order to pass it to your ilk, Act on your own share in the courts before you pass as in re: Wilks. In Manitoba, you need notice to give away your joint tenancy. Although a wife snuck in a conveyance in Stonehouse v AG, BC Another way is a course of conduct if there evidence you entered in tune, Such as agreeing to split into two accounts like in Flannigan v Wotherspoon. And if you want to make sure your heirs don t face any sorrows You could draw up mutual wills to sever your unities like in Szabo v Boros. Separation, declarations, and leases did not provide a share for a disabled son, But a beneficial interest via trust was luckily enough in Sorenson v Sorenson. However an explicit agreement to split on sale saw severance done, In a mutual separation agreement down right in Patterson v Patterson. Partition and Sale. Anyone with an interest entitling possession can request the courts to elect, To partition and sell a property as was described in re:Chupryk. If you don t come with clean hands you may be out of luck, So be not vexatious or oppressive and you ll be selling like in Schwabiuk. The courts will often presume the deeds on file were done accurately, Then it s hard to avoid sale as the husband found in Fetterly v Fetterly. The courts have discretion to order a homestead sold on occasion when No one is paying mortgage as in Winspear Higgins Stevenson v Friesen Really, when a co-owner wants their interest the courts will see it off, No matter what the motivation as the son learned in Simcoff v Simcoff. Usually it s for sale unless the lot is big enough to build two residences on, Then they ll partition it as they did the island in Cook v Johnston. Other Interests: Equitable interests are an estoppel working against a give and taker, Like the son induced to build a bungalow in Inwards v Baker. To get rights to lasting improvement you make on the land of your neighbours. Claim honest and mistaken belief as they did in Robertson and Saunders.

A dominant tenement and can request an easement on which they embark Across a neighbour s servient property as they did in re: Ellenborough Park.