Equity and Trusts - Family Property Flashcards
The courts can presume a resulting trust
Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington
What 3 criteria must be met for a presumption of resulting trust to arise following the voluntary transfer of property?
X has transfered property to Y
There has been no consideration
There is no evidence of X’s intention
N.B. Does not apply to land (s.60(3) LPA 1925)
What 3 criteria must be met for a presumption of resulting trust to arise following the voluntary transfer of purchase money/ lottery syndicates/ chattels?
X has transferred purchase money to the seller
The property is put in Y’s name
Payment is made at the time of the acquisition of the property
N.B. Presumption is for a percentage of value mathematically equivalent to the percentage contribution to purchase price
Recent cases have applied constructive rather than resulting trusts to determine the share of co-habitees in a home
Stack v Dowden
Presumption of resulting trust is useful when a property has been bought as an investment
Laskar v Laskar
There is a presumption of advancement where the transferor is the transferee’s Father or is in Loco Parentis
Bennett v Bennett
There is a presumption of advancement where the transferor is the transferee’s Fiancee
Pettitt v Pettitt
Presumptions can be rebutted by an explanation of why the property was put in one party’s sole name
McGrath v Wallis
Only acts/ statements that occurred at the time of transaction are admissible as evidence
Shephard v Cartwright
A constructive trust occurs when it would be unconscionable for the legal owner of the property to assert sole ownership of the beneficial interest
Paragon Finance v DB Thakarar
Constructive trusts are more appropriate for determining the beneficial interests of cohabitees in a property purchased as their home
Stack v Dowden
There must be both common intention and detrimental reliance for there to be a constructive trust
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Express intention can be demonstrated by the legal owner if they said the claimants name would have been on the legal title had it not prejudiced divorce proceedings
Grant v Edwards
It is doubtful whether anything less than contributions to purchase price or mortgage payments will be enough to demonstrate common intention
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Payments of household expenses will suffice where payments are substantial and made pursuant to agreement
Le Foe v Le Foe
Court must look at all the circumstances to work out intention
Stack v Dowden
To show detrimental reliance, the claimant must have significantly altered their position in reliance on the agreement
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Substantial contributions to household expenses or raising children may be enough to show detrimental reliance
Grant v Edwards
If a constructive trust is established, the court will quantify the claimants equitable interest according to what the parties agreed. if this is not clear, stack v dowden
Oxley v Hiscock
If agreed share is not clear when working out shares of the beneficial interest, the court will infer what the parties intended from the whole course of dealings. Starting point: 50/50 share but will consider evidence to rebut this and amend accordingly
Stack v Dowden
Parties’ intentions regarding the size of their respective
shares could change over time.
If there is no express agreement as to the shares, the court would infer the parties’ intentions according to what would be fair having regard to the whole course of dealings
Jones v Kernott
What two limbs must be satisfied to establish proprietary estoppel?
The legal owner behaved in a way that made the claimant believe he has/ will get an interest in the property
The claimant acted to his detriment based on this belief
A legal owner can actively assure they are entitled to an interest in the property
Pascoe v Turner
How might a legal owner offer passive assurance in proprietary estoppel?
A legal owner can stand back and allow a claimant to act to their detriment
There must be a causal connection between assurance and detrimental action
Financial/ personal detriment (Gillett v Holt)
Improving the owner’s land (Inwards v Baker)
If between relatives, assurance and reliance must go beyond what is called for by natural love or affection
Re Basham
The remedy should be the minimum to satisfy the equity but with the focus still being on what is fair and proportionate as between the parties
Joyce v Epsom and Ewell BC
What factors did Jennings v Rice establish the remedy should depend on?
Unconscionability Proportionality Benefit of the claimant and defendant Alteration of the defendant's finances Financial obligations The effect of taxation
What will stack and Dowden look at when working out share of equitable interest?
1- Direct contributions
2- Indirect contributions to household
expenses
3- Lord Walker thought they should also take account of non-financial contributions.
4- Baroness Hale suggested factors such as the
advice the parties had received prior to acquisition and how they organised their finances would be important