Resulting And Constructive Trusts

Question 1

Resulting trusts

There must be evidence of a common intention of both parties at the time of purchase

Answer 1

Curley v Parkes

Question 2

Size of contribution = size of interest

Answer 2

Bull v Bull

Question 3

Presumption that contributors intend to have an interest regardless of legal ownership can be rebutted (e.g. gift)

Answer 3

Re Sharpe

Question 4

Resulting trusts

Mortgage payments taken into account

Answer 4

Laskar v Laskar

Question 5

Resulting trusts

Right to buy discount taken into account

Answer 5

Springsteen v Defoe

Question 6

Resulting trusts

Resulting trusts are used mainly in commercial cases. Courts tend to use constructive trusts

Answer 6

Jones v Kernott

Question 7

Constructive trusts - express

Original case for requirements - common intention and detriment

Answer 7

Drake v Whipp

Question 8

Constructive trusts - express

Discussions may not be perfectly precise, just need evidence of agreement of shared ownership

Answer 8

Eves v Eves

Question 9

Constructive trusts - express

Non legal owner must prove detriment

Answer 9

Lloyds v Rosset

Question 10

Constructive trusts - express

If no discussion, the court will look to the course of dealings and will impute shares based on what they consider fair

Answer 10

Oxley v Hiscock

Question 11

Constructive trusts - express

Ascertain parties shared intentions in light of course of dealings - I fed rather than impute

Answer 11

Stack v Dowden

Question 12

Constructive trusts - implied

Indirect contributions not sufficient in absence of express common intention

Answer 12

Gissing v Gissing

Question 13

Constructive trusts - implied

Claimant must show common intention based on contribution to purchase price or mortgage payments

Answer 13

Lloyds v Rosset

Question 14

Constructive trusts - implied

Court will try to infer shares intended and if it cannot, then it will impute based on what is fair in light of all circumstances and the course of dealings

Answer 14

Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott

Question 15

Joint ownership

50/50 presumption unless contrary intention proved (burden on seeking party). Court will look at conduct of parties and take holistic approach - exceptional circumstances required to vary 50/50 share

Answer 15

Stack v Dowden

Question 16

Joint ownership

50/50 presumption can be rebutted by different intention on acquisition or a common intention to vary - can only be inferred not imputed

Answer 16

Jones v Kernott