DORSET-L Archives

Archiver > DORSET > 1999-12 > 0944431168


From: David Jacobs <>
Subject: Re: Interpretation of will
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 21:59:28 +0000


Reply to Lynda
============
At 17:09 04/12/99 -0000, you wrote:
>Is there anyone out there who can give me some idea of what the following
>paragraph in a will means. It is from the will of Leonard MARTIN of Wimborne
>Minster (written 1847), he distributed everything to his nieces and nephews
>as he had no children of his own.
>
>"I give and bequeath my lifehold property at Cowgrove aforesaid (held by the
>life of my nephew George Muddle) and also the sum of one hundred pounds
>sterling unto the said George Muddle absolutely during all my estate farm &
>interest therein subject to the payment & performance of the rent and
>covenants in the lease by which I hold the same contained"
>
>I think I have transcribed it correctly, and it definitely says 'lifehold'.
====================
I've been waiting to see if someone more well-informed than myself was
going to answer, but as no-one else seems to have volunteered, here are my
thoughts on the matter.
====================
>Q1. Is a lifehold a lease for the duration of someone's life?
=
Yes, that's exactly what it was. We are more used to leases being for a
definite length of time, but in earlier times it was quite common to have
leases lasting for the lifetime of some named person, or for the longest
living of more than one individual. This obviously is a bit of a gamble on
the part of the land owner granting the lease, not knowing if the agreed
rent would still look reasonable many years in the future. Therefore what
was usually agreed was a large initial payment or fine, and a relatively
small rent thereafter.
=
>Q2. Could Leonard take out a lifehold on the life of his nephew George?
=
Yes, or anyone whose death could easily be ascertained by the landowner,
such as a family member, or even some famous person.
=
3. Has George been left the rent from this property for the rest of his
>life?
=
No. On the contrary, George has to take over paying the rent and
maintaining any obligations (such as keeping fences in good repair, etc.)
that were undertaken by his benefactor Leonard Martin. But for his
lifetime he is free to use the land as he pleases, as though he owned it
freehold.
=
>By the way, George was definitely in London in 1827 and 1851 and probably
>between these dates, so why would Leonard take out a lifehold in his name?
=
Possibly because he had in mind leaving him this leased land all along.
George could always sublet the land (to a tenant farmer, if it was farm
land) or to another family member.
George could on inheriting this property take out a new lease on the life
of his children (for example) if he so wished, to keep the land in the
family for the long-term.
Land leased for lives was usually owned by corporate bodies such as
churches or colleges, and could effectively be treated as freehold by the
families renting it.
=
I recommend an excellent little booklet 'Title Deeds' by A A Dibben, for a
splendid summary of the complexities of land ownership and occupation.
ISBN 0 85278 078 8
=
Cheers, Dave Jacobs, Southampton England

This thread: