Implied trusts MCQs Flashcards
A man and his girlfriend consider opening a joint bank account but believe that this will be difficult because the girlfriend does not have British nationality. Instead, the man opens the account in his own name, assuring the girlfriend that “it’s both of our account really”. They both regularly pay money into the account and use it for paying household expenses such as electricity bills and food shopping, as well as eating out and holidays. The man regularly refers to the account as “our account”.
What is the most likely conclusion that a court would reach about this arrangement?
The man holds the money in the account on trust for himself, with a power to pay money to his girlfriend.
The man holds the money in the account on trust for his girlfriend.
The man is the full legal and beneficial owner of the money in the account. The girlfriend has no equitable proprietary interest.
The man holds the money in the account on a discretionary trust for himself and his girlfriend.
The man holds the money in the account on trust for himself and his girlfriend equally.
The man holds the money in the account on trust for himself and his girlfriend equally.
This is the most likely conclusion, based on similarities to the case of Paul v Constance.
A man and woman bought a house 20 years ago as a family home. The house was registered in the man’s sole name. The couple were not married or in a civil partnership. When the house was purchased they agreed that they had equal shares in the house but did not write this down. The couple lived together in a quasi-matrimonial relationship, sharing all outgoings including the mortgage payments, until they separated recently. The man denies that the woman has any interest in the house.
Which of the following is the best advice to the woman?
The starting point is that the man is the sole equitable owner. It is unlikely that the woman can establish an equitable interest in the house.
The starting point is that the man is the sole equitable owner. It is likely that the woman has acquired an interest under a common intention constructive trust. Under this trust, the man and woman are likely to be equitable tenants in common in equal shares.
It is presumed that the man and woman are equitable joint tenants. This presumption is likely to be rebutted in favour of a tenancy in common in equal shares.
The starting point is that the man is the sole equitable owner. It is likely that the woman has acquired an interest under a common intention constructive trust. Under this trust, the man and woman are likely to be equitable joint tenants.
It is presumed that the man and woman are equitable joint tenants. It is unlikely that the presumption can be rebutted.
The starting point is that the man is the sole equitable owner. It is likely that the woman has acquired an interest under a common intention constructive trust. Under this trust, the man and woman are likely to be equitable tenants in common in equal shares.
This is the most likely analysis based on the express discussions between the parties. There is nothing which suggests that their intention changed over time.
A woman purchased a cottage which was registered in her sole name. She subsequently entered a relationship with a man. They were not married or in a civil partnership. The man spent many weekends helping the woman to decorate the cottage. The woman told the man that the improvements to the cottage would “benefit us both”.
The relationship has broken down and the man is claiming a beneficial interest in the cottage.
Which of the following statements is the best advice?
It is likely that the man could establish a beneficial interest in the cottage under an express trust.
It is unlikely that the man could successfully establish a beneficial interest in the cottage.
It is likely that the man could establish a common intention constructive trust based on his detrimental reliance upon the express discussions about benefitting from the cottage.
It is likely that the man could establish a beneficial interest in the cottage under a purchase money resulting trust.
It is likely that the man could establish a common intention constructive trust based on the whole course of conduct in relation to the cottage.
It is unlikely that the man could successfully establish a beneficial interest in the cottage.
This is the most likely analysis. The express discussions were not about ownership of the house and it is unlikely that helping the woman to decorate the cottage would be sufficient to infer a common intention for the man to acquire an interest in the cottage.
A man and a woman bought a house as a family home which was registered in their joint names. 75% of the deposit was provided by the woman, with the balance provided by way of mortgage for which they were jointly liable. The woman made most of the mortgage repayments and paid most of the outgoings. The man and woman lived in a quasi-matrimonial relationship for 25 years, during which time they had three children. Throughout this period the parties kept separate bank accounts and made separate investments. The couple recently separated and the woman is claiming that she is entitled to a larger share of the house than the man.
Which of the following is the best advice to the woman?
The couple are presumed to be equitable joint tenants. Based on the whole course of conduct, the court is likely to rebut the presumption and award the woman a greater share which will be quantified with reference to her financial contributions to the mortgage and outgoings.
The couple are presumed to be equitable joint tenants. It is unlikely that the presumption can be rebutted.
The couple are presumed to be equitable joint tenants. It is unlikely that the presumption will be rebutted until the couple ended the relationship, at which stage the presumption will be rebutted in favour of a tenancy in common in equal shares.
The couple are presumed to be equitable tenants in common in proportion to their respective contributions to the mortgage and outgoings. It is unlikely that this presumption can be rebutted, meaning the woman will have a greater share of the property than the man.
The couple are presumed to be equitable tenants in common. Based on the whole course of conduct, the court is likely to rebut the presumption and award the woman a greater share which will be quantified with reference to her financial contributions to the mortgage and outgoings.
The couple are presumed to be equitable joint tenants. Based on the whole course of conduct, the court is likely to rebut the presumption and award the woman a greater share which will be quantified with reference to her financial contributions to the mortgage and outgoings.
This is the most likely analysis, based on the similarity between this fact pattern and the facts of Stack v Dowden, where rigid separation of finances was a significant factor.
A woman and her girlfriend bought a house which they registered in their joint names. During the course of a 12 year relationship, they contributed equally towards the mortgage payments and other household outgoings. The couple then separated and agreed that the woman would remain in the house and that the girlfriend should use their joint savings as a deposit on a new flat. The girlfriend made no further contributions to the house. The woman died 15 years later. Her personal representatives claim that her estate is entitled to a share of the house (which has increased significantly in value since the couple separated).
Which of the following is the best advice to the woman’s personal representatives?
It is presumed that the couple were equitable tenants in common in equal shares. It is likely that the presumption was rebutted when the couple separated. The woman’s estate is likely to have a greater share based on her continued contributions and the increase in the value of the house.
It is presumed that the couple were equitable joint tenants. It is unlikely that the presumption can be rebutted.
It is presumed that the couple were equitable joint tenants. It is likely that the presumption will be rebutted in favour of a tenancy in common in equal shares.
It is presumed that the couple were equitable joint tenants. It is unlikely that the presumption can be rebutted. The house passes to the girlfriend via survivorship.
It is presumed that the couple were equitable joint tenants. It is likely that the presumption was rebutted when the couple separated. The woman’s estate is likely to have a greater share based on her continued contributions and the increase in the value of the house.
It is presumed that the couple were equitable joint tenants. It is likely that the presumption was rebutted when the couple separated. The woman’s estate is likely to have a greater share based on her continued contributions and the increase in the value of the house.
This is the most likely analysis, based on the similarity to the fact pattern in Jones v Kernott. It is unlikely the presumption could be rebutted before the couple separated, but their subsequent conduct suggests that it was intended that the woman should benefit from subsequent increases in the house price.
A father is the registered owner of freehold land which is used as a farm. He encourages his daughter to work on the farm and regularly assures her that he will leave the farm to her on his death. His daughter lives and works on the farm for her whole life, giving up other career opportunities. On the father’s death, he leaves the farm to his son.
Which of the following is the best advice to the daughter on whether she can claim the farm by estoppel?
She may have a claim to the farm by estoppel, but more evidence will be needed on whether she can satisfy each element of the claim.
She cannot claim estoppel because equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
She cannot claim estoppel because it can only be used as a defence, not a cause of action.
She can only claim estoppel if she suffered substantial financial detriment in working on the farm.
She is very likely to have a successful claim to the farm by estoppel.
She may have a claim to the farm by estoppel, but more evidence will be needed on whether she can satisfy each element of the claim.
On these facts, the daughter may have a successful claim, but more evidence is needed on whether there was sufficient assurance, reliance, detriment and unconscionability.
