Joint Bank Accounts Flashcards
What is a presumed resulting trust?
Generally, where ownership of property is transferred from one person to another, and where there is no consideration, it will be assumed that the grantee holds the property by way of a resulting trust for the grantor.
What does the law assume when a gift is given for no consideration?
The law presumes no gift was intended unless a contrary intention can be shown, or the presumption of advancement arises.
What case demonstrates the early position of the courts in relation to joint accounts?
Re Vinogradoff
What happened in Re Vinogradoff?
A testatrix transferred stock into the joint names of herself and her granddaughter, but she continued to receive dividends until her death.
The granddaughter was held to hold the stock by way of a resulting trust for the estate of the testatrix.
What was the consequence of Re Vinogradoff?
Joint bank accounts would lead to a resulting trust where one party made deposits and managed the account during their life (and subsequently died).
Where would the left over bank account money go?
The money would go to the estate of the deceased on resulting trust.
Why was the traditional approach of the court restrictive?
The courts are always reluctant to undermine the law of succession.
What happened in Owens v Greene?
The testator expressed an intention that the other parties to his joint accounts would receive the sums of those accounts upon his death.
Kennedy CJ was of the view that in order for the co-depositors to benefit, there must be an immediate intention that they benefit.
An intention that they benefit only upon death would not be enough.
In what other (2) cases was exclusive control over the joint accounts a deciding factor?
Daniels v Dunne; AIB Finance Ltd v Sligo CC
What jurisdiction changed their approach before Ireland (and in what case)?
Australian High Court in Russell v Scott
When did a change in Irish approach occur?
1990
What case changed the view of the Irish courts?
Lynch v Burke
What happened in the High Court Lynch v Burke?
The deceased opened an account in the name of herself and her niece.
The Niece was present at the time the account was opened.
The deposit book provided that it was payable to the deceased only or survivor.
The High court felt confined by law to find for a resulting trust.
What happened in the Supreme Court in Lynch v Burke?
The Supreme Court were of the view that the fact the niece was present when the account was opened meant that she was entitled to claim as a party to the contract.
Owens was overruled.
It was noted that the intention of resulting trusts was to avoid fraud, which is completely at odds with defeating the intention of the deceased. Accordingly, the money was hers.
Is the fact that a person is there when the account is set up an important factor?
Yes, according to obiter remarks in O’Meara v Bank of Scotland and later in Gilvarry v Maher.
