Cohabitation 3 & 4 Flashcards
b. Drawing inferences from conduct
Wnd way u can establish constructive trust, look at parties conduct so 1st thing
* Lack of express agreement need not be fatal
- Conduct may show that the parties intended to share beneficial ownership
- Although a court cannot impute intention based on what is fair
- Capehorn v Harris [2015]
-
So what u looking for any conduct read as = quite diff to prove
-
Theres some disagreement btw whether or not u can impite fairness rather than just lean it from aprties intention, trying to do is tell u that when a married couple get divorced, court will lok at what parties have contributed to the rels and tehn give that party financial asses partly on what fai, wheras construve trust nit about whats fair its abut what the intention is, so youre not really looking at fairness same way you do with financial married couples erm so cases were talking about here are cases where couples just haven’t got round discussing so start lving together but haven’t actually discuseed what will happen in break down of rels
-
Starting point Lloyds bank- lokking for that direct contributin that’s quite a lot to look up to – direct contrib to the purchase of the property and then obvs have resulting trust but within that ud have mort payments so direct contribution, now what u have to do is read as as I read the auth so heres summarising up what other auth said erm so here lord bridge requires direct contrib
-
Lightfoot v Lightfoot-Brown [2005]
- the payment had to be ‘referable to the acquisition of the house’
and then in lightfoot – said payment
So there is a slightly lighter – light foot will take into account indirect contributions as u know law inprecise in this area, so start off quite strict
Facts of Rosset
- Married couple
- House purchased in husband’s sole name from trust money (condition of trust that house in sole name of husband)
- Mrs R helped renovate but did not contribute financially
- Bank sought repossession after Mr R failed to keep up repayments on money borrowed from the bank and Mrs R sought a share under a constructive trust.
-
Held: Mrs R’s claim rejected. No express agreement to share and although the court would be willing to infer an agreement from a direct contribution to the purchase price or mortgage, she made neither of these.
Neither a common intention to renovate the farmhouse as a joint venture, nor a common intention to share it as a family home was enough to show that the parties intended that they should both have a beneficial interest.
there wa no express agreement to share, and again set bar quite high s said was if she had contributed directly/ contributed to mortgage then that would be okay but she didn’t do either than these so she failed to prove she had constructive trust court said neither read as written – hol felt it was normal that she should carry out this work so work that she did was could be explained on ground she was creating a home,they said it was trifiling, so this is not good news for our cohabitees
Gissing v Gissing [1971]
- Mr G paid all mortgage instalments and repayments on a loan
- Mrs G had contributed a small amount for furniture and laying the lawn
- She bought her own clothes and those for her son and supplemented the housekeeping allowance
- The couple had separate bank accounts
-
Held: No beneficial interest – no common intention
-
Again no beneficial interest- her contrib was indirect didn’t satsfy wasn’t seen as direct contrib and therefore couldn’t satisfy any conduct for construvtie trust
STARTING POINT- DIRECT CONTRIB MORE STRIATFORWARD THAN INDIRECT EXAMS NORMALLY INDIRECT
-
Stack provides some insight into what can be taken into account…. see next slide
Let’s consider the case of Stack [2007]
Tellin us – 2007 law has changed to reflect timese rosset 1991 stack 2007 that cohab couples on increase and law reflecting cohab couples2007 tells us that finaical contrib are factor but so are other things
Court will infer intentions, they will infer from conduct what there intention is , so these are really important so its advised discussions etc, law is beginning to change more than just financial contrib looking at it as whole
indirect contrib
There is some evidence of a more flexible approach being taken in some cases of indirect financial contributions.
Law Commission (Sharing Homes: A Discussion Paper 2002) has pointed out:
In many cases, a couple will not engage in discussion, but agree to an ordering of the household finances such that one pays off the mortgage while the other pays the household bills.
Goes against Bridge in Rosset
in LeFoe v LeFoe [2001
Lord Mostyn thought differently and a common intention from indirect contributions to the mortgage established an interest
harsh rule then some eroding voer th eyears
Abbott v Abbott [2007]
- husband’s mother transferred plot of land into husband’s sole name and both husband and wife contributed towards mortgage payments. Husband disputed mother’s gift was a joint one.
-
Here they did find evidence of common intention, after the marriage read as written
Gift to married couple from mother son was gift and therefore when mother gave it to on she was giving it to both, mother also gave money to hep buy house, now In that case everything was joint ,joint about rels which was important, now privy council said u had tosurvey whole course of dealings , so hard to servey the whole course of dealings, going into realms of holistic approach
-
Held: Wife awarded 50%
Comment: Holistic approach taken in Abbott and Le Foe
-
Whats important about this case is there is something about way couple arrange their finances so if ur looking at as a whole ur not necc looking at each parties individual contribiton ur looking at the way in which they raise their finances, ow from abbot aboot just genual way they arrange their finances and that’s enough, she didn’t necc need to pay 50% of the mortgage , so law sorta shifts really direct contrib and now moved to see lets see how arrange finances lets look at jointess of rels
-
Rosset = 1991 and Abbott = 2007 – reflection of the times?
Tougher approach taken in James v Thomas [2007]
- Mr T sole owner of property before he met Ms J
- cohabited for 15 years
- Ms J worked unpaid in Mr T’s business, becoming a partner
- extensive repairs on the property (funded by income from the business)
- Mr T accepted that improvements would ‘benefit them both’
- Ms J assured that if Mr T died that Ms J would be ‘well provided for’
- Mr T unwilling to put house in joint names when asked to do so by Ms J
-
Held: Mr T’s assurances were insufficiently specific to give rise to a constructive trust.
A harsh decision?
subjec to crit
-
But court said her actions were consistent with forming a life with another?? And thwy weren’t formed out of self interest, so court said her behaviour was consi with living with someone nd buldimng life with them but weren’t for beenifiial interest, she weren’t doing it to get something out if it just having alife with this man
Benefit and being provided for= not future promises seen as … seen as not indicate
- So hard because she put all her earnings into property and got nothing back so everything she earnt went into this proeperty and sh eiddnt get anything back for it , so quite harsh I think, also Thomas said thought should be entitled to something but nt 50% its about intention and not fairness, so I think this is an unfair decision but case using for showing not based on fairness
Comments on James v Thomas
- In Stack suggested that improvements that added significant value to the property should be sufficient to generate an interest
- If this is the case, does it benefit males more than females?
- Would Ms J have been more successful if Mr T had lied to avoid putting the house in joint names?
- Significant that Mr T had purchased the property before the parties met.
Raised the question of whether a common intention to share could be formed after the property had been acquired. Court confirmed it could.
