Family Homes Flashcards
In which context do disputes over the home arise commonly?
Sole owner legal title but another individual claims a beneficial interest in the property
Joint owners but no declaration as to the shares of beneficial ownership and claimed that parties are not beneficial joint tenants
How can an express trust be declared for a family home?
Written evidence that satisfies s53(1)(b)
What presumption is there about beneficial ownership from Stack v Dowden?
In absence of express declaration - beneficial ownership of the land mirrors the legal ownership.
What kinds of trusts are used to determine beneficial ownership of a family home?
Common intention constructive trusts
What was the significance of Stack v Dowden?
House of Lords indicated that a holistic approach should be adopted when determining legal ownership - not just based on purchase money
What has Stack v Dowden established in terms of the presumptions and rebuttals needed for sole and joint legal ownership cases?
Starting point - beneficial title reflects legal title
Sole legal ownership - individual seeking to establish beneficial interest must show that there was a common intention that B should have a beneficial interest, and a detrimental reliance on that intention
Joint legal ownership - individual seeking to establish that they are NOT joint tenants needs to rebut the presumption with common intention and detrimental reliance
Can intention change over the course of a relationship? How is it approached more widely?
Yes, if circumstances change
Court looks to the express or inferred intention based on the ‘whole course of conduct’
How does the court approach quantification once common intention and detrimental reliance are established?
Express intention - court will affect this
No express - court will try to infer an intention based on the conduct of the parties
If cannot ascertain intention of parties - court can impute an intention for ‘fair shares’ based on all the ‘whole course of conduct
If land is owned legally by more than one party, what is the initial presumption of the status of the legal and equitable title?
Legal title - can ONLY be held as a joint tenancy.
Equity follows the law - presumed that equitable title is also held as a joint tenancy
What is the two step approach in joint legal ownership cases?
1) Rebut presumption: did the parties have a common intention to hold the property other than as joint tenants? Did claimant act to their detriment in reliance on that common intention?
2) Quantification: What proportions of tenancy in common?
When would someone seeking to rebut the presumption of equitable joint tenancy argue for an equal share in tenancy in common?
In disputes about beneficial ownership of land when one of the legal joint owners has passed away.
Survivorship doesn’t operate for tenancy in common.
What Stack factors may be considered by the court in analysing the ‘whole course of conduct’ to rebut the presumption of equitable joint tenancy?
Advice or discussions parties had
Why legal title was registered in their particular names
Purpose for which parties acquired the house
Nature of the relationship
Whether parties have children
How was house financed
How parties arranged other finances / divided responsibility for household expenses
How has court approached the application of the Stack factors?
Presumption is not rebutted lightly
For party seeking to rebut presumption to find evidence - heavy burden requiring unusual facts.
Court looks for actual intention of parties - best evidence is express agreements / discussions.
Financial factors are the most important
Why in Stack was the presumption rebutted?
Couple had kept their finances rigidly separate throughout 27 year relationship
Are financial contributions alone enough to rebut presumption of joint tenancy?
No - in Fowler v Barron a man who had paid for everything was unable to rebut the presumption
What significant things did Jones v Kernott establish?
Intention can change / be ambulatory
Presumption maybe could not be rebutted at time of acquisition but parties later formed a different common intention
Mr Kernott’s intention here crystallised when he moved out - stopped contributing to the mortgage and the parties divided the life assurance policy equally between them.
When can imputation occur?
Only at the quantification stage - not when rebutting the presumption of joint tenancy
What is the starting point if a legal title is held by one individual?
The equitable title is the same
What principles are important to remember when considering express discussions that parties had about the property?
When assessing common intention - statements should be about shared ownership not merely about shared occupation.
Common intention to shared ownership can be evidenced by the legal owner providing an excuse as to why their partner is not jointly registered as the legal owner - but does depend on why the excuse was made
How does the court apply the holistic approach to inferring common intention in sole legal ownership cases?
Stack has widened consideration of non-financial factors
But the court still takes a restrictive approach to inferring common intention
Substantial improvements which significantly add value to property could be capable of creating an interest
How is detrimental reliance understood?
Has been considered conduct which is otherwise inexplicable - conduct upon which you could not be reasonably be expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the house
Act done to your detriment relating to joint lives of parties
Is proprietary estoppel a cause of action?
Yes - not just a defence unlike promissory estoppel
What fact pattern is common for Proprietary Estoppel?
B assures A that they have or will acquire a right in relation to their property and in reliance on that assurance, A acts to their detriment.
What are the three elements of a proprietary estoppel claim?
An assurance made to the claimant
Reliance by the claimant on the assurance
Detriment to the claimant in consequence of their reliance
Overarching theme: unconscionability
What characteristics must the assurance have?
Must be an assurance that the claimant has or will acquire a right in property owned by the defendant - can’t just be a general assurance about financial stability
Need not be explicit - can be inferred from indirect statements
Must be ‘clear enough’ but this is thoroughly context contingent
How is ‘reliance’ understood in a PE claim?
There must be a sufficient link between defendant’s assurance and the detrimental conduct
Does not have to be the sole cause - just one cause is enough
Defendant must prove that the claimant did not rely on the assurance - burden of proof is changed
How is ‘detriment’ understood in a PE claim?
Approached as part of a broad inquiry as to whether repudiation of an assurance is or is not unconscionable in all the circumstances
Can consider any benefits recieved
Can be financial but also can be other decisions to detriment
How is unconscionability understood?
Must ‘shock the conscience of the court’
What remedies can proprietary estoppel generate?
Transferring property
Holding property on trust for claimant
Claimant gets a property right
Personal right
Damages
Remedy should never exceed the claimant’s expectation
Simplest remedy is to hold the promisor to the promise
But justice must be done between the parties
if more than one remedy - court should allow defendant to choose
When would fulfilling the claimant’s expectation not be an appropriate remedy?
D no longer owns the property
D reneges on assurance a long time before it was due to be honoured
Hardship to third parties
Disproportionate
Would involve enforced cohabitation.
