I find that Mrs. Tizard contributed substantially to the successive property ventures by putting up money for the first deposit, He charged it to the plaintiffs, who now sought possession. Expert solutions. Had Mr. Marshall's report indicated that Mr. Tizard was married, it seems to me to be clear that bearing in mind that the Reference this KF paid the money to the husband alone. this: that, to come within the paragraph, the occupation in question must be apparently inconsistent App. They should avoid pre-arranged visits which might enable the landowner to hide evidence of occupation: Kingsnorth Finance v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783. A sale was ordered on a property where the wife's signature was forged on mortgage documents. notwithstanding the fact that on numerous occasions she slept elsewhere. A married couple jointly contributed to the purchase price for a property intended to serve as the matrimonial home with the husband taking sole legal title to the property at registration. As KF did not pay the money to two trustees, the wife's beneficial interest was not overreached. However, there is reason to consider that the right may be enforceable if the right could not be registered, and if the subsequent circumstances indicated that the parties were aware of the right so claimed. Home. Mr. Wigmore submits that although in the case of registered land the fact of occupation confers protection, in the case of The