CICT - Rosset and detrimental reliance

Question 1

what was issue with Denning’s previous model?

Answer 1

didn’t like the large amount of discretion with CICT

Question 2

what were the facts of Rosset’s 1991?

Answer 2

• Mr Rosset single legal owner and wife claiming property interest in it under CICT
• mr took mortgage out with bank, then left and stopped with payments, it was only him tat owed money to bank
• so if it could be proved Mrs had CICT over property, she could have priority to her share before the bank take it

Question 3

what are the 2 conditions established in Rosset?

single legal owner case

Answer 3

• express agreement that property to be shared beneficial (expressly discussed) AND detrimental reliance

or

• direct contributions to the purchase price whether initially or by mortgage

Question 4

what were the facts of Eves 1975

Answer 4

• janet get with stuart Eves
• buy house financed by the sale of stuarts old house and mortgage in his name
• never got married just changed name (so not divorce case)
• stuart said they were going to share ownership, but why not put it in joint names? he lied to her about being too young
• when house bought it was in poor condition, involved physical work to renovate
• first limb of rosset test as did not contribute any money

Question 5

were the first limbs of the rosset method fulfilled in Eves 1975?

(reliance on a lie case 1)

Answer 5

• Denning said Eves should be held to what he said not what he thought
• looked like they both intended to share so court concluded there was a common intention
• the heavy physical labour was construed to be detrimental reliance and they gave her quarter share under CICT

Question 6

what were the facts of the Grant 1986 case?

reliance on a lie case 2

Answer 6

• linda get with george edwards, had son and move into house
• said it was to be shared but he lied and intended to keep for self
• edwards provided whole of purchase money, linda only paid some bills
• but without her contribution they would have enough money for mortgage so there was indirect contribution

Question 7

how was limb 1 of Rosset applied to Grant 1986?

Answer 7

• applying Eves yes there was a common intention to share
• court said yes there was detrimental reliance via the indirect payments in response to the lie

(this was generous stretch as lot of people would pay bills whether they owned house or not)
- awarded half share

Question 8

what were the facts of Geary 2012?

contrast with Eves and Grant

Answer 8

• guesthouse in Rankines name, mrs geary helped run business, 19 year relationship
• court said there wasn’t a CICT
• the man didn’t promise a share in the property, wasn’t enough that she thought she would have an interest

Question 9

what happened when new test applied to Rosset?

Answer 9

• found the rosset’s has not decided that Mrs should have any interest in the property, so failed first bit of limb 1
• mrs didn’t do anything out of the ordinary in innovating so no detrimental reliance
• Mrs loses and bank takes possession of house
  (very narrow scope here)

Question 10

which 2009 case is a more extreme version of detrimental reliance and what happened?

Answer 10

Thompson 2009

• jane Thompson claims 50% share in home from the single legal owner Roy
• roy had no intention of sharing and tried to get her to sign away rights in house, but she refused
• no agreement to share ownership
• no detrimental reliance even though she gave up work (but its was poorly paid with no prospects), more to do with the promise of being looked after

(Rosset is hard property law, not about what is fair)

Question 11

what happened in Ungurian 1990 case (that goes against Eves)?

convincing evidence

Answer 11

• relied on the fact women did building work

- solicitor knew about the Eves case and they exaggerated too much in court to make it similar

Question 12

which 2018 case shows accomodation in the law to so with substantial building work?

Answer 12

Culliford 2018

• unmarried gay couple
• Culliford ill so reducing working hours
• couple plan to develop 2 properties then rent out for money
  judge happy to infer an agreement to share for this plan (generous)
• detriment was building work, Thorpe did most of building work as Culliford worked long hours
• said there was a CICT there 50/50

Question 13

how does quantification work with the second part of the Rosset test and case?

Answer 13

proportion in become proportion out

Springette 1992

Question 14

which is the quantification case where it was a mix of Limb 1 and 2 of Rosset?

Answer 14

Midland v Cooke 1995

married couple but still need CICT

Question 15

what was the outcome of Midland bank v cooke 1995?

Answer 15

• Mrs cooke only contributed 6%, trial judge awarded her that
• CA weighed up wider facts, more flexible approach gave Mrs cooke 50% despite lack of express discussion in Rosset

Question 16

which quantification case went back to what was fair with respect to property, in the absence of discussion between them about the share?

Answer 16

• Oxley 2004
• massively discretionary
• its still supposed to be property law

Question 17

what was the emergence of the 2 stages

Answer 17

• acquisition stage (rosset for single and stack v dowden for joint owners)
• quantification stage (more flexible, stack v dowden later take over)