Constructive Trusts Flashcards
a trust
a relationship created at the direction of an individual, in which one or more persons hold the individual’s property subject to certain duties
who holds the legal title
- if one person, the presumption is that they own the whole thing
- if two people registered together and hold it jointly, the presumption is 50/50
the way to disturb the presumption
through the parties’ common intention
types of common intention
- express and inferred
- presumed
- imputed
resulting trust
the creation of an implied trust by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person
constructive trust
equitable remedy resembling a trust imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding legal right to property which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference
Eves v Eves 1975
f: C and D in a relationship (D separated from his wife for this), intended to marry when divorce came through, bought a house in D’s name because he told her she was too young, C did not provide any direct contribution, but carried out substantial work on the property (sledgehammer)
j: C entitled to 1/4 under a constructive trust as she was led to believe that she’d have a share
p: CT precedent
Burns v Burns 1984
f: C and D lived together for 19 years w/o marriage, D bought a house and C made no contributions to purchase price or mortgage instalments, acted as a homemaker, made financial contributions to the household including bills and redecorating
j: in the absence of a financial contribution such as mortgage instalments there is no right to a beneficial entitlement to a family home, plus D was wealthy - he didn’t need her to pay the bills
j: CT precedent
Lloyds Bank v Rosset 1991
f: a married couple bought an old house with the aim of redecorating, put in Mr Rosset’s name, they got a mortgage from Lloyds and some Swiss trust that didn’t want Mrs to hold title, Mrs Rosset spent loads of time supervising the builders, then Lloyds wanted possession
j: she lost, this sexist judgment that a woman would obviously spend time decorating the house, plus lack of express common intention
p: CT precedent
Grant v Edwards 1986
f: D purchased a house that was conveyed into his and his brother’s name, he told C pregnant with his child that her name should not be there because of her divorce proceedings, C made substantial contributions to the housekeeping which enabled D to meet the mortgage instalments
j: C entitled to half of the interest, common intention found, she acted to her detriment in a belief that she would have an interest
p: CT precedent
Curran v Collins 2015
f: a property bought for a couple to live together in, D’s excuse for not putting the name is that it’s too expensive
j: no CT, possibly because they were not living toghether at the time, or that the excuse was literally ‘you’re not on the title deeds because sth’
p: change in law?
Oxley v Hiscock 2004
f: C and D bought a house together, she paid 28%, he 48%, they both contributed to household expenditure, improvements, maintenance and mortgage, she then claimed 50%
j: she got 40%, when there is no expression of what share each was to, then it it up to the courts to decide
p: quantification
Stack v Dowden 2007
f: C a builder, D rich, bought a house registered together, but purchase price 65% from D, they kept their finances separate, assumption that they were equitable joint tenants so 50/50
j: she got 65% (burden on her to show that the parties that the parties did intend their beneficial interests to be different from their legal interests), this whole analysis
p: possible to rebut the 50/50 presumption
Jones v Kernott 2011
f: parties brought the property in joint names with a joint mortgage, shared expenses for eight years, after that D left and made no further contributions towards the acquisition, this continued for 14 years, when the property was put up for sale
j: ratio 90/10, three judges because imputed common intention, 2 because discretion
p: followed Stack v Dowden
