6. Implied Trusts of the Home

Question 1

Pettit v Pettit

Answer 1

If parties have expressly declared what their interests are, that will be deemed conclusive

Question 2

Gissing v Gissing

Answer 2

Declaration of beneficial interests needs to be evidenced in writing to comply with LPA 1925, s 53(1)(b)

Where property is conveyed to one party only, he will be presumed to be the owner of the whole beneficial interest as well

Question 3

Stack v Dowden

Answer 3

In absence of express oral agreement as to parties’ shares, courts must examine parties’ common intention in light of whole course of conduct
• (1) Financial contributions
• (2) Discussions – between parties, with solicitors
• (3) Nature of relationships
• (4) Outgoings – bills, council tax, food
• (5) Personalities – e.g. dominant imposing views on other?
• (6) Any children – responsibility to provide home?
• (7) Finances – all pooled into single account or kept separate?

Question 4

Jones v Kernott

Answer 4

o (1) Presumption is parties are joint tenants in law and equity
o (2) Presumption can be displaced by showing parties had different common intention (a) at time they acquired home or (b) subsequently
o (3) Common intention is to be deduced objectively from conduct
o (4) Where presumption is rebutted, but it is not possible to ascertain intention as to exact apportionment of shares, this will be determined by the court, having regard to whole course of dealing between them
o (5) Each case will depend on facts – financial contributions important, but not decisive

Question 5

Fowler v Barron

Answer 5

Man who had paid deposit, all mortgage payments and direct outgoings unable to rebut presumption of joint beneficial ownership

Question 6

Adekunle v Ritchie

Answer 6

House bought in joint names of mother and son (mother unemployed) - presumption rebutted: purpose clearly to provide home for mother

Question 7

Laskar v Laskar

Answer 7

Where property is bought as investment rather than joint home, Stack v Dowden doesn’t apply

Question 8

Bull v Bull

Answer 8

‘Purchase money’ resulting trust

Question 9

Rosset

Answer 9

At time of acquisition or (exceptionally) at later date, there must be an agreement, arrangement or understanding

Inference is by direct contributions to purchase price alone

Question 10

Clough v Killey

Answer 10

‘Everything’s 50:50’ – sufficient

Quantification question - court follows agreement (even though estimated woman only actually contributed 25%)

Question 11

Hammond v Mitchell

Answer 11

‘Half yours’ – sufficient

Question 12

Grant v Edwards

Answer 12

Conduct which is otherwise inexplicable, i.e. it cannot be explained other than by reference to agreement as to shared beneficial interest

‘It will prejudice your divorce’ – sufficient (excuse case)

Question 13

Eves v Eves

Answer 13

Detrimental reliance found when woman carries out substantial repair and maintenance works on property

‘You’re too young’ – sufficient (excuse case)

Question 14

Burns v Burns

Answer 14

Looking after children does not count as detrimental reliance

Question 15

Parris v Williams

Answer 15

Detrimental reliance need not have been agreed/anticipated by parties

Question 16

Holman v Howes

Answer 16

Where there is agreement as to acquisition question but not as to quantification, courts fall back on criteria from Stack v Dowden

Question 17

Graham-York v York (recent case)

Answer 17

Courts must look at whole course of conduct in relation to property

Question 18

James v Thomas

Answer 18

Non-financial factors only count in exceptional circumstances

Question 19

Thomson v Humfrey

Answer 19

Giving up job to help party with legal ownership on basis that he would look after her also does not give rise to inferred intention

Question 20

Le Foe v Le Foe

Answer 20

Paying household bills may be enough if frees up party with legal ownership to make mortgage repayments

Question 21

Thomas v Fuller Brown

Answer 21

Carrying out renovations on property not enough

Question 22

Abbott v Abbott

Answer 22

‘Holistic approach’ – look at whole course of dealing to infer what the interest should be (Stack v Dowden criteria)

Where interest cannot be inferred, it may be imputed by the courts – i.e. they will simply declare what seems a fair allocation