Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law First Year > Property Law Second Term - FAMILY HOMES > Flashcards

Property Law Second Term - FAMILY HOMES Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What case made it clear inferred CI is an objective test

A

Jones v Kernott

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Laskar v Laskar

A

Mother daughter investment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the two requirements for acquisition of a CT in sole legal ownership?

A

Agreement/arrangement/understanding and detrimental reliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Grant v Edwards

A

‘Conduct on which [someone] could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless [he/she] was to have an interest’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Who argued in Oxley that there is ‘no difference in outcome’ between CT and PE?

A

Chadwick LJ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Who said Inferred CI should not be used for acquisition?

A

Lord Wilson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Hale in Jones on ‘equity follows’

A

No presumption, but will follow when there is an ‘emotional and economic commitment to a joint enterprise’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Who called inferred CI a ‘fiction’ and in what case

A

Lord Kerr in Jones

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What case gave two requirements for acquisition in sole legal ownership cases?

A

Lord Bridge, Lloyds Bank v Rosset

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Who referred to a ‘domestic’ context for family home in stack?

A

Hale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the three possible ways to quantify joint legal ownership shares?

A

Actual, inferred or imputed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did Hale in Stack suggest (obiter) about express/inferred/implied?

A

Applies to quantification AND acquisition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Who supported a constructive trust in Stack v Dowden

A

Hale and Walker

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Goodman v Gallant

A

‘Conclusive’ declaration of an express trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Why was Coombes v Smith not CT?

A

D already owned the house

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what did Bridge say about inferring agreement?

A

Only from direct contribution to purchase price as ‘doubtful whether anything less will do’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is an ambulatory trust?

A

When common intention changes over time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the problem with an ambulatory trust?

A

You need severance to change JT to TC, so new method?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Oxley v Hiscock

A

CT and PE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Jones v Kernott facts

A

90% to wife

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What case suggested Bridge was wrong on inferring agreement for CT?

A

Aspden v Elvy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Who referred to ‘matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial’ context for family home in Stack?

A

Walker

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Stack v Dowden facts

A

65% given to the wife - they had separate finances, suggesting they wished to keep their individual shares separate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

When is Goodman v Gallant set aside?

A

Unconscionable or proprietary estoppel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is suggested to be a block on imputation for acquisition in sole legal ownership?

A

The fact that V needs to have relied on the assurance - can’t rely on something made up

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Coombes v Smith

A

Affair, children

21
Q

Chadwick LJ in Oxley

A

‘No difference in outcome’ between CT and PE

22
Q

How did Rosset and Stack argue purchase price could play a dual role?

A

For implied common intention it could prove intention and detriment

23
Q

Greasley v Cooke

A

Evidence of detriment presumed reliance

25
Q

Why did the government reject the TR1 form being compulsory?

A

Against their anti-regulatory agenda

26
Q

What do s.1(6) and s.36(2) LPA make clear?

A

Only JT at law

27
Q

What is the issue with Hale obiter in Stack?

A

Imputed intention for acquisition would allow CT to arise without any agreement at all

28
Q

Why might the TR1 Form not be used?

A

Need more than one transferee, DIY conveyancing, ignoring possibility of breakdown or undue influence

28
Q

Jones v Kernott on resulting trust

A

No presumption of an RT from unequal shares if romantic relationship

29
Q

‘Conduct on which [someone] could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless [he/she] was to have an interest’

A

Grant v Edwards

31
Q

Eves v Eves

A

‘This will always be your home’

32
Q

How does one determine inferred common intention?

A

‘In light of the whole course of conduct’ (Hale in Stack)

34
Q

Laskar and Stack

A

Stack has no application because for investment

36
Q

Eves v Eves ratio

A

Actual common intention even if not genuine

37
Q

What are the formalities for an express trust?

A

S.53(1) LPA

39
Q

Who said inferred CI is ‘in light of the whole course of conduct’?

A

Hale in Stack

40
Q

What if Stack had applied in Laskar?

A

Would have rebutted equity follows the law

41
Q

Why are s.1(6) and s.36(2) LPA problematic for joint legal ownership?

A

They show you haven’t chosen interests at law, so why should equity follow the law?

42
Q

Who referred to ‘sexual, platonic, familial’ etc context for family home in Stack

A

Neuberger

44
Q

Who supported a resulting trust in Stack?

A

Neuberger

45
Q

How is quantification for sole legal ownership CT worked out?

A

Same as for joint - Stack v Dowden

47
Q

Hale in Stack on ‘equity follows the law’

A

Rebutting is not ‘a task to be lightly embarked upon’

48
Q

Aspden v Elvy

A

Habitable work

49
Q

What two types of agreement can be found for acquisition in sole legal ownership?

A

Express or inferred

50
Q

What is inferred CI?

A

What reasonable people would have done

51
Q

What sections of the LPA make it clear only JT at law?

A

S.1(6) and s.36(2) LPA

52
Q

Why is there no writing needed for a CT or RT?

A

S.53(2) LPA excludes it

53
Q

How did Rosset distinguish CT from PE?

A

CT needs discussions before purchase

54
Q

Lord Bridge in Oxley

A

Overlap between CT and PE

55
Q

Who suggested the TR1 Form should be compulsory?

A

Law Commission

56
Q

When is there a more expansive notion of family home than in CT?

A

PE

57
Q

Stack v Dowden on resulting trust

A

Not for family home as the ‘law has indeed moved on’ from Lloyds Bank v Rosset

58
Q

why did Coombes v Smith fail?

A

No detriment

59
Q

What case suggested an ambulatory trust may be possible?

A

Jones v Kernott

60
Q

What two cases conflict on whether mortgage repayments can be used for an RT?

A

Laskar v Laskar, Curley v Parkes

61
Q

Curley v Parkes

A

Mortgage repayments not for RT

62
Q

Mortgage repayments NOT for RT

A

Curley v Parkes

63
Q

Abbot v Abbot

A

RT not for quantification or acquisition in a family home case as only focuses on payment of money

64
Q

Why was there no detriment in Coombes v Smith?

A

She would have moved in anyway

Law First Year (24 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions