Equity And The Family Home Flashcards
Gissing v Gissing
Married for 16 years. Wife paid substantial amount towards furniture and laying lawn. House was in husbands name only. She put no money towards money purchase money. She had no interest.
Burns v Burns.
Never married. Lived together 19 years. He paid purchase price. She brought up children and performed domestic duties. She redecorated house. She had no interest. Matrimonial cause acts did not apply.
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Entire purchase money came out of family trust and was in husbands name. Wife spent a lot of time renovating house. She had no beneficial interest.
Grant v Edwards
Woman was married to someone else. She lived with a man who had his name only in title. He made excuse as to why her name would not be on title - as it would prejudice her in marriage proceedings. She relied on her detriment. She had a half shred under constructive trust.
Stack v Dowden
He moves in with her into a house in her name. They had four children and then moved into a house in their joint names. They both made repayments. She paid bills. He was awarded 35%. The question was what was intended by their conduct? They kept their financial affairs separate and contributed
Gillet v Holt
Holt was a farmer who took Gillet under his wing. He promised that one day he would have the farm. So Gillet left school. The relationship broke down and Gillet was written out the will. He sought an interest in the farm under proprietary estoppel. He had forgone the opportunity to educate himself. He relied detrimentally on getting the farm.
Thorner v Major
Farm owner left farm by will to claimant. He destroyed will and dies intestate. Claimant had reasonable expectation that he would receive the farm. Proprietary estoppel found it would be unconscionable not to and was awarded the farm.
Midland Bank v Cooke
She only contributed a half share of £1000 wedding present purchase money. She was entitled to half share. This appears to be their intention.
Oxley v Hiscock
Unmarried couple on separation received a share in the home equal to the amount they contributed.
Pettit v Pettit
Wife bought house in her name probiding entire purchase money. Husband significantly improved property using labour and money. Husband had no interest in Property.
Jennings v Rice
Worked for an old lady for little money. Led to believe he would inherit estate. She does intestate. Proprietary estoppel. He received a sum of money as he had relied to his detriment.
