Implied Trusts

Question 1

Westdeutsche

Answer 1

Presumption of resulting trusts

Question 2

Presumption of a resulting trust from Y to X if

Answer 2

• X transfers property to Y;
• No consideration is supplied; and
• There is no evidence of X’s intention

Question 3

Presumption of a resulting trust from Y to X mathematically equivalent to percentage of contribution to purchase price if

Answer 3

• X transfers purchase money to seller; and
• Property is put in Y’s name; and
• Payment is made at the time of the acquisition of property
  (Curley v Parkes)

Question 4

There is a presumption of advancement instead of a resulting trust if X is Y’s father

Answer 4

Bennet v Bennet

Question 5

There is a presumption of advancement instead of a resulting trust if X is Y’s loco parentis

Answer 5

Bennet v Bennet

Question 6

There is a presumption advancement instead of a resulting trust if X is Y’s husband or fiance

Answer 6

Pettitt v Pettitt

Question 7

s.199 Equity Act 2010

Answer 7

Abolished presumption of advancement for trusts created after date of commencement of this Act

Question 8

A presumption of an implied trust can be rebutted by surrounding circumstances at time of transaction

Answer 8

Circumstances include:

• Explanation of the property being put in the sole name (McGrath)
• Retention of title deeds (Warren)
• Proof of intention to make a gift (Loosemore)

Question 9

To rebut a presumption of resulting trust

Answer 9

Must prove transfer was a gift or loan

Question 10

To rebut a presumption of advancement

Answer 10

Must prove that the transfer was not intended as a gift.

Question 11

Shephard v Carwright

Answer 11

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

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Paragon Finance

Question 13

Constructive trusts are more appropriate to determine equitable interests of cohabitees in a property purchased as their home

Answer 13

Stack v Downden

Question 14

For there to be a common intention constructive trust, there must be:
common intention; and detrimental reliance

Answer 14

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

Question 15

Express intention can be shown by legal owner telling claimant name would have been on legal title if it did not prejudice divorce proceedings

Answer 15

Grant v Edwards

Question 16

Payment of household expenses held to suffice as conduct for common intention where payments are substantial and made pursuant to the agreement

Answer 16

Le Foe

Question 17

When working out intention for a common intention constructive trust, court must look at all circumstances

Answer 17

Stack

Question 18

To show detrimental reliance, claimant must significantly alter position in reliance on the agreement

Answer 18

Rossett

Question 19

Substantial contribution to household expenses and raising children may be sufficient to show detrimental reliance

Answer 19

Grant v Edwards

Question 20

To work out what beneficial interest a claimant should receive from a constructive trust, court will determine a fair share with regards to the whole course of dealings
Ie mortgage contributions, council tax, utilities, repairs, insurance, outgoings

Answer 20

Oxley v Hiscock

Question 21

Jones v Kernott

Answer 21

This case fuses the two principles from Oxley and Stack.
If an intention cannot be inferred then the courts will assess what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealings.

Question 22

Proprietary estoppel

Answer 22

Gives rise to equity if:

• legal owner behaves in such a way that the claimant believes he has, or will get, some rights in relation to the property; and
• claimant acted to his detriment in consequence of this belief

Question 23

Active assurance is where the legal owner assures claimant that they are entitled to an interest in the property

Answer 23

Pascoe v Turner

Question 24

Passive assurance

Answer 24

Legal owner stands back and lets the claimant act to their detriment in the belief that he is entitled to an interest in the property

Question 25

Financial or personal detriment can be enough for detrimental reliance for PE

Answer 25

Gillett v Holt

Question 26

Improving the legal owner’s land can be enough for detrimental reliance for PE

Answer 26

Inwards v Baker

Question 27

Assisting and supporting the legal owner in pursuit of career can be enough for detrimental reliance for PE

Answer 27

Southwell v Blackburn

Question 28

If the relationship is between relatives, it must go beyond what is ‘called for by natural love and affection’ to be enough for detrimental reliance for PE

Answer 28

Re Basham

Question 29

Jennings v Rice

Answer 29

Remedy for PE depends on:

• unconscionability;
• alteration of the defendant’s finances;
• financial obligations;
• effect of taxation;
• defendant’s benefit;
• claimant’s benefit;
• practical remedy; and
• proportionality

Question 30

Remedy for PE is flexible - focus is on what is fair and proportionate as between the parties

Answer 30

Joyce v Epson