Family Property Flashcards
There is a presumption of a resulting trust when Y transfers property to X if no consideration is supplied. Which case?
Re Vindogradoff
There is a presumption from Y to X mathematically equivalent to the percentage contribution of a property purchase price. Which case?
Burns v Burns
There is a presumption of advancement if X is Y’s father and X voluntarily transfers property to Y. Which case?
Bennet v Bennit
There is a presumption of advancement if X is Y’s husband or fiance and X voluntarily transfers property to Y. Which case?
Pettit v Pettit
Presumptions can easily be rebutted with evidence of intentions. Which case?
McGrath v Wallis
Retention of title deeds will rebut the presumption of advancement. Which case?
Warren v Gurney
Only acts/statements that occurred at the time of transaction are admissible of evidence which explains intentions. Which case?
Shepherd v Cartright
Evidence of fraudulent or illegal motives cannot be used to rebut presumptions. Which case?
Gascoigne v Gascoigne
An illegal purpose which has not been carried into effect may be raised in evidence, which case?
Tribe v Tribe
If the illegal purpose is not needed to establish the rebuttal this will not defeat a resulting trust.
Tinsley v Milligan
What are the two types of constructive trust?
- Express common intention constructive trust
2. Implied conduct common intention constructive trust
What must exist for an express common intention constructive trust?
- An agreement or understanding
- Supported by detrimental reliance
Lloyds Bank v Rossey
What is necessary for an implied common intention constructive trust?
“Contribution to the purchase price or mortgage payments”. “Nothing less will do”. Lord Bridge Lloyds Bank v Rosset
In which case was it suggested that instead of mortgage payments, contribution to repairs might suffice
Le Foe v Le Foe; Stack v Dowden
If a common intention constructive trust is established, how should it be calculated?
Taking into account the implied common intentions of the parties (Baroness Hale at [69] of Stack v Dowden)