Equity and Trusts - Family Property

Question 1

The courts can presume a resulting trust

Answer 1

Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington

Question 2

What 3 criteria must be met for a presumption of resulting trust to arise following the voluntary transfer of property?

Answer 2

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)

Question 3

What 3 criteria must be met for a presumption of resulting trust to arise following the voluntary transfer of purchase money/ lottery syndicates/ chattels?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Recent cases have applied constructive rather than resulting trusts to determine the share of co-habitees in a home

Answer 4

Stack v Dowden

Question 5

Presumption of resulting trust is useful when a property has been bought as an investment

Answer 5

Laskar v Laskar

Question 6

There is a presumption of advancement where the transferor is the transferee’s Father or is in Loco Parentis

Answer 6

Bennett v Bennett

Question 7

There is a presumption of advancement where the transferor is the transferee’s Fiancee

Answer 7

Pettitt v Pettitt

Question 8

Presumptions can be rebutted by an explanation of why the property was put in one party’s sole name

Answer 8

McGrath v Wallis

Question 9

Only acts/ statements that occurred at the time of transaction are admissible as evidence

Answer 9

Shephard v Cartwright

Question 10

A constructive trust occurs when it would be unconscionable for the legal owner of the property to assert sole ownership of the beneficial interest

Answer 10

Paragon Finance v DB Thakarar

Question 11

Constructive trusts are more appropriate for determining the beneficial interests of cohabitees in a property purchased as their home

Answer 11

Stack v Dowden

Question 12

There must be both common intention and detrimental reliance for there to be a constructive trust

Answer 12

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Question 13

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

Answer 13

Grant v Edwards

Question 14

It is doubtful whether anything less than contributions to purchase price or mortgage payments will be enough to demonstrate common intention

Answer 14

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Question 15

Payments of household expenses will suffice where payments are substantial and made pursuant to agreement

Answer 15

Le Foe v Le Foe

Question 16

Court must look at all the circumstances to work out intention

Answer 16

Stack v Dowden

Question 17

To show detrimental reliance, the claimant must have significantly altered their position in reliance on the agreement

Answer 17

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Question 18

Substantial contributions to household expenses or raising children may be enough to show detrimental reliance

Answer 18

Grant v Edwards

Question 19

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

Answer 19

Oxley v Hiscock

Question 20

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

Answer 20

Stack v Dowden

Question 21

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

Answer 21

Jones v Kernott

Question 22

What two limbs must be satisfied to establish proprietary estoppel?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

A legal owner can actively assure they are entitled to an interest in the property

Answer 23

Pascoe v Turner

Question 24

How might a legal owner offer passive assurance in proprietary estoppel?

Answer 24

A legal owner can stand back and allow a claimant to act to their detriment

Question 25

There must be a causal connection between assurance and detrimental action

Answer 25

Financial/ personal detriment (Gillett v Holt)

Improving the owner’s land (Inwards v Baker)

Question 26

If between relatives, assurance and reliance must go beyond what is called for by natural love or affection

Answer 26

Re Basham

Question 27

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

Answer 27

Joyce v Epsom and Ewell BC

Question 28

What factors did Jennings v Rice establish the remedy should depend on?

Answer 28

Unconscionability 
Proportionality 
Benefit of the claimant and defendant 
Alteration of the defendant's finances 
Financial obligations
The effect of taxation

Question 29

What will stack and Dowden look at when working out share of equitable interest?

Answer 29

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