Family home Flashcards
How does court decide?
So how does court decide?
Legal ownership – at law who holds legal title
Sole owners – if property is registered in sole name then it will belong to one person
Joint owners – if property is registered in joint names the couple will own the property as legal joint tenants
Legal owners may hold the legal title as
- Full legal and benefical owner
- On trust for sole beneficiary or more than one benefiary
Ideally the legal owners will declare an express trust over it putting the question of benefical ownerhsio beyond doubt
Land TR1 form has a provision for specying equitable ownership
Common intention constructive trusts?
useful – holistic approach not just money – relefct common intention of parties
Such intention can be
Express
Inferred
In sole legal ownership cases?
an individual seeking to establish a beneficial interest will need to establish that they have acquired an interest under a common intention constructive trust.
This requires proof of:
(i) A common intention that they should have a beneficial interest; and
(ii) Detrimental reliance upon that intention
In joint legal ownerhsip cases?
an individual seeking to establish that they are not beneficial joint tenants will need to rebut the presumption with reference to the common intention of the parties. There is no need to show detrimental reliance.
Once common intention found will try to quantify it?
If an express intention as to quantification can be established, the court will give effect to that intention.
If an express intention cannot be established, the court will attempt to infer an intention based on the conduct of the parties.
As a last resort, if it is not possible to ascertain the actual intention of the parties as to quantification of their shares, the court will impute an intention for ‘fair shares’ based on all the ‘whole course of conduct’.
To REBUT PRESUMPTION IN JOINT LEGAL OWNERSHIP CASES?
Exactly what will be deemed sufficiently ‘unusual’ to depart from the presumption of joint tenancy remains unclear. In Stack the court was persuaded the presumption was rebutted by the rigid separation of the couple’s finances. Yet Stack also made clear that the law has moved on from the very restrictive approach adopted in the 1990s and that financial matters alone are not the only factors to be taken into account.
Common intention can be ambulatory – CHANGE OVER TIME
The court confirmed the following principles:
(a) The starting point is that equity is presumed to follow the law.
(b) This presumption can be displaced by evidence that:
(i) The common intention was different at the time of acquisition; or
(ii) Although the presumption could not be rebutted at the time of acquisition, the parties
later formed a different common intention.
(c) Common intention is deduced objectively from conduct. The court should consider what each
party would reasonably have understood to be the actual intention of the other, based on
such conduct.
plying the Stack factors
Lady Hale made clear in Stack that the presumption will not be rebutted lightly in cases of joint
legal ownership. It is for the party seeking to rebut the presumption to adduce the relevant
evidence, which is a ‘heavy burden’ requiring ‘unusual facts’.
- UNEQUAL financial contributions alone are not enough to rebut presumption of joint beneficial owner.
Courts SHOULD infer but backup is to IMPUTE
For sole legal ownership?
Legal woner will be sole benefical owner unless other person can etsbalihs an interest under a common intention constructuve trust
(a) Establishing an interest:
(i) Did the parties have a common intention for the non-legal owner to acquire a beneficial interest?
- for this hollistic approach - statements should be about shared ownerhsip not merely shared occupations
- if excuses are made likely to be made out
- performance of household duties
- indirect financial contirbutions should be taken into account(ii) Has that person relied on this to their detriment?
- inexpelicable ocnduct
- detrimenet
Quantification: If the non-legal owner can establish an interest, what is the quantum of that interest as a proportion of the property?
Proprietary estoppel?
Enables a person to informally aquire property rights, its objective is to prevent uncocnsiable conduct.
- It’s a cause of action
- Court determines what remedy is appropriate
(a) In the first situation, A mistakenly believes that they have a right in land which is owned by B and, in reliance on that belief, act to their detriment in circumstances where B is aware of their mistake but does not attempt to correct it or prevent them acting to their detriment. This situation is commonly described as an ‘acquiescence’ case.
(b) In the second situation, B assures A that they have or will acquire a right in relation to B’s property and, in reliance on that assurance, A acts to their detriment. This situation is commonly described as an ‘assurance’ case.
Elements of a estoppel claim?
- An assurance made to claiamint – that they will aquire a right in property owened by defendant – assurance need not be explicit – clear enough
- Releiance by claimant on assurance
- Dterminement to claimaint in consequecens of their reliance
CLAIM ALSO NEEDS TO BE UNCONSIANBLE – but if there other 3 are stafied this discretion is unlikely to be used.
Assurance?
The assurance must be an assurance (a promise) that the claimant has or will acquire a
right in property owned by the defendant: Thorner; Southwell v Blackburn [2014] EWCA Civ 1347.
Thus, an assurance by the defendant that they will grant the claimant an easement over their
land is a qualifying assurance. But an assurance by the defendant that the claimant will always
be financially secure is not because it does not relate to any property owned by the defendant:
Layton v Martin [1986] 2 FLR 227.
Remedy for proprietary estoppel?
AVOID UNCONCINABLE RESULT
- Transfer ownership of property to the claimant;
- Hold property on trust for the claimant;
- Grant the claimant a property right over their property (eg an easement);
- Grant the claimant a personal right over their property (eg a licence);
- Pay a sum of money to the claimant.
CA have said
- Pay a sum of money to the claimant.
- Remedy should not exceeed claiaminst expectations
- Court may award a remedy which satisfied the claiamints epecetations
- Remedy by be propritonate to claiamints detriment
