Implied Trusts Flashcards
Westdeutsche
Presumption of resulting trusts
Presumption of a resulting trust from Y to X if
- X transfers property to Y;
- No consideration is supplied; and
- There is no evidence of X’s intention
Presumption of a resulting trust from Y to X mathematically equivalent to percentage of contribution to purchase price if
- 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)
There is a presumption of advancement instead of a resulting trust if X is Y’s father
Bennet v Bennet
There is a presumption of advancement instead of a resulting trust if X is Y’s loco parentis
Bennet v Bennet
There is a presumption advancement instead of a resulting trust if X is Y’s husband or fiance
Pettitt v Pettitt
s.199 Equity Act 2010
Abolished presumption of advancement for trusts created after date of commencement of this Act
A presumption of an implied trust can be rebutted by surrounding circumstances at time of transaction
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)
To rebut a presumption of resulting trust
Must prove transfer was a gift or loan
To rebut a presumption of advancement
Must prove that the transfer was not intended as a gift.
Shephard v Carwright
Only acts/statements that occurred at time of transaction are admissible as evidence
A constructive trust occurs when it would be unconscionable for the owner of the property to assert beneficial interest in the property
Paragon Finance
Constructive trusts are more appropriate to determine equitable interests of cohabitees in a property purchased as their home
Stack v Downden
For there to be a common intention constructive trust, there must be:
common intention; and detrimental reliance
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
Express intention can be shown by legal owner telling claimant name would have been on legal title if it did not prejudice divorce proceedings
Grant v Edwards
Payment of household expenses held to suffice as conduct for common intention where payments are substantial and made pursuant to the agreement
Le Foe
When working out intention for a common intention constructive trust, court must look at all circumstances
Stack
To show detrimental reliance, claimant must significantly alter position in reliance on the agreement
Rossett
Substantial contribution to household expenses and raising children may be sufficient to show detrimental reliance
Grant v Edwards
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
Oxley v Hiscock
Jones v Kernott
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.
Proprietary estoppel
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
Active assurance is where the legal owner assures claimant that they are entitled to an interest in the property
Pascoe v Turner
Passive assurance
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
