IMPLIED CO-OWNERSHIP

Question 1

BENEFICIAL INTEREST

Answer 1

• trust of land arises automatically when you have co-ownership of land
• implied (resulting and constructive) trusts do not require anything in writing s53(2) LPA

Question 2

RESULTING TRUST

Answer 2

• also known as purchase money result in trust
• these are not deliberately created
• means spring back in favour of real purchaser
• Bull v Bull 1955
• resulting trusts are no longer used for properties shared by domestic couples stack v dowden
• but still applied in cases where property is held as an investment Laskar v laskar 2008
• RT arises from contribution to purchase price
• Rebutting the presumption of RT then u have to provide evidence financial contribution was a gift or a loan of successfully done then RT does not arise
• to establish RT then financial contribution must be proved at time of purchase
• following sale of land the share would you receive is proportionate to original contribution springet and da foe

Question 3

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

Answer 3

• also known as common intention
• arise in domestic disputes over shares in co owned property where there has been no express declaration of trust
• gissing v gissing
• Pettitt v pettitt

Question 4

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST TEST NOW

Answer 4

• comes from Lloyds bank v Rosset
• normally assumed that if sole owner in law then sole owner in equity as equity follows law
• can be challenged by showing

1 evidence of express agreement made by parties at some stage before acquisition and show that non legal owner acted to their detriment in reliance on that agreement
2 or common intention inferred from behaviour Lloyds bank. Where there is no evidence of express agreement court may be able to infer a common intention through conduct that the property was to be shared equally this conduct is money contributions to price/mortgage

Question 5

CRITICISMS FOR ROSSET

Answer 5

• gissing v gissing
• Le foe v le foe
• stack v dowden
• geary v rankine
• Webster v Webster
• more on slides

Question 6

JOINT NAME CASES

Answer 6

• normally assumed equity follows law so JT in both law and equity
• can be rebutted stack v dowden

Question 7

PRESUMPTION OF EQUITABLE JOINT TENANCY

Answer 7

• begin by assuming both parties share 50/50
• onus is on person seeking an unequal share to show the parties they intended their beneficial interest to not be equal
• look to facts of the case

Question 8

REBUTTING PRESUMPTION

Answer 8

• to rebut need to show parties had different common intention or
• they formed a common intention that shares would change
• other relevant factors such as money household expenses relationship etc

Question 9

COMMON INTENTION

Answer 9

• court can infer common intention if actual is not clear in cases of rebutting JT
• once this is proven court can then look at proportion of shares
• court can look at actual or inferred common intention
• if not found then can impute whole course of dealings oxley v hiscock 04

Inferred : intention parties had based on action
Imputed: intention would have had if they had thought about it

Question 10

AMBULATORY TRUST

Answer 10

• parties common interest can change over time
• Jones v kernott
• Barnes v Phillips

Question 11

MARRIED PARTIES

Answer 11

• s37 of matrimonial proceedings and property act 1970 applies
• comes into play when couples are divorcing
• states that through virtue they have beneficial interest