Resulting And Constructuve Flashcards
Vandavel
Settlor didn’t make it clear who was to be the beneficiaries, held to be a resulting trust
Lahia v Lahia
S60(3) LPA- inapplicable to voluntary transfer of land
McGrath v Wallis
House purchased by father and son in sons name for occupation of both, to maximise chances of a mortgage loan
Harwood v harwood
Borrowed money is prima facie the direct contribution of the borrower- can be rebutted
Curley v Parkes
Payment of mortgage when under no liability will not be sufficient
A resulting Trust only arises at the moment of acquisition
Barrett v Barrett
If one party is paying when under no obligation, this must be because there is an agreement and giving effect to t must be under a constructive trust
Springette v Defoe
Reduction in purchase price through the status of a party will give that party a commensurate interest-
41% reduction in purchase price of a council house because woman had been tenant for 11 years
Drake v Whipp
Payment of cost of initial work on property may be sufficient
Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘the trust arises by operation of law as from the date of the circumstances which give rise to it: the function of the court is merely to declare that such a trust has arisen in the past
Paragon Finance
Millet LJ: ‘a constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of the property to assert his own beneficial interest and deny the beneficial interests of another’
Yeoman’s Row Management
‘It is impossible to prescribe exhaustively the circumstances sufficient to create a constructive trust but it is possible to recognise particular factual circumstances that will do so and those that will not’
Westdeutsch Landesbank
(Remedial) Lord Brown-Wilkinson ‘a remedial constructive trust is a judicial remedy giving rise to an enforceable equitable obligation: the extent to which it operates retrospectively to the prejustice of Jord parties lies in the discretion of the court’ -
Not recognised in English law
Thorner v Major
Lord Scott expressed a desire to make use of remedial trusts
Re Polly Peck International
Nourse LJ was of the view that English courts would never use a remedial constructive trust
Bannister v Bannister
Old lady sold 2 cottages to her brother-in-law at below market value on an oral agreement she could live in one rent free for the rest of her life
Lyus v Prowsa
Purchaser of registered land agreed to be bound by an unregistered minor interest
Re rose
To give effect to intention despite failure to comply with formalities
Pettit v Pettit
No doctrine of ‘family property’ under English law
Jones v Kernott
Rules applied years after when the relationship had broken down
Aspen v Elvy
Acquisition of property and all relevant events took place some years after the couple had separated
Gallarotti v Sebasianelli
Purchase by friends
COA described the purchase as being ‘more domestic than commercial’- court however concluded it was implausible that the friend contributing more was making a gift to the other
Laskar v Laskar
Indicates inflexibility of commercial purchases- purchase of a mothers council house by mother and one of her daughters l- COA held Stack couldn’t apply as the purchase was primarily for investment purposes
Goodman v Gallant
Express declaration as to the beneficial interest will be conclusive unless there is fraud or a mistake
Springette
Legal title in joint names does not amount to an express declaration of a trust of an equitable interest
Stack v dowden
Express declaration could be varied by a later agreement or by proprietary estoppel
Anif v Anwar
First instance case- beneficial ownership can only be affected by an express assignment of the equitable interest in writing - s53(1)(c)
Stack v dowden
Presumption of an equitable joint tenancy- common intention constructive trust
Jones v kernott
Applies to purchase of a house or flat by a couple for their joint occupation
Mere fact of putting joint names means there is a CICT- both own the whole regardless of actual contributions
Lord Walker and B Hale: purchase together is a strong indication of an emotional and economic investment to a joint enterprise
Lord Collins: argues there must have been a conscious decision to put the property in joint names
Adekunle v Ritchie
May also apply to the purchase of a home by a parent and child
Stack
Presumption can be rebutted, by there will be a heavy burden to do so- cohabiting couple since 1975- ms D bought house with aid of mortgage loan, she paid all the outgoings, had 3 children, Mr D did some work on the house- house in question bought in 1993 with money from Ms D’s account including proceeds of sale from first house. Transferred into joint names- he paid interest on mortgage, loan paid off in lump sums by both- all savings and investments kept separate- Ms D successful in claim for 65%
Fowler v Barron
Cohabiting couples bought in joint names- had a family, joint liability under mortgage- woman paid nothing to acquisition costs, used her income to pay household costs- had made mutual wills suggesting each believed they had an interest to leave- presumption not rebutted
Jones v kernott
Change of intention recognised- couple separate after 8 years together- 14 years later Mr K contributed nothing and very little to children- cashed in and split life insurance policy, Mr K used to buy a new property- held sufficient evidence hat intentions had changed
Barnes v Phillips
After purchase of a home, Mr B purchased properties as business investments in his own name. He got into debt and home was remortgaged to cover debts- received a sum from mortgage equal to 25% of value of property- relationship ended after a while Mr B stopped contributing to mortgage
Pettitt v Pettitt
Mrs P inherited- Mr P spent £800 on repairs and decoration- she sold the house and purchased another property conveyed into her name alone, some money that was left was given to her husband to purchase a car- divorced 4 years later, held: Mr P had no interest in the property, improvements were insufficient
Gissing v Gissing
Divorced after 31 years- legal title in Mr G’s sole name- Mrs G provided £220 towards furniture and laying a lawn- Held Mr G held the house absolutely, contributions not sufficient to infer common intention
Lloyds bank v Rosset
Lord Bridge distinguished 2 situations
Evidence of an agreement or arrangement to share beneficial ownership
No direct evidence and t is necessary to infer a common intention
James v Thomas
In theory a person can acquire an interest in property that was already owned by the other party before any relationship started, but it will be very difficult to establish; requires exceptional circumstances and wasn’t established on the facts
Aspen v Elvy
Claimant had paid for substantial improvements to the property- very unusual set of facts- intention established
Eves v eves
She was only 20
Grant v Edwards
It would be prejudicial in her divorce proceedings
Hammond v Mitchell
For tax reasons
Curran v Collins
Would be cheaper if only one life assurance policy required. No intention of moving in, and there was not a positive assertion that her name would have been put on the title were it not for the cost-
Lewiston LJ: ‘if one asks to be on the deeds and is told No, they would have understood that they were not to become owners or part owners of the property- cases to the opposite are fact sensitive- parties living together, had children, family home, and a positive statement that otherwise he would have bought in their joint names
Springette
The parties must actually have discussed the issue
Midland bank v Dobson
Must have acted to his/ her detriment or significantly altered his position in reliance on belief
Grant v Edwards
Claimant made a substantial contribution to household expenses, kept house and brought up the children. Owner could not otherwise have paid the mortgage
Eves v eves
14lb sledgehammer
Lloyd’s bank v Rosset
Overseeing builders, decorating- acts were of trifling value in relation to the house
Pascoe v turner
Told the house was hers, spent £230 on redecoration, got the fee simple
Greasley v Cooke
Failure to look for a job outside the house, got a home for life
Geary v Rankine
Implied bargain-
‘Whole conduct’ approach but the result would have been the same if applied pre-kernott, therefore not clearly adopted yet but courts
Lloyds bank v Rosset
Contribution that would give rise to a resulting trust is sufficient
Huntingford v Hobbs
The court will give effect to an agreement as to whose contribution borrowed money is
Irvin Blake
Applied Lord Bridge in Rosset- doubted anything less than direct contribution would be sufficient
Le foe v le foe
Judge relied upon Lord Diplock in Gissing and he interpreted Lord Bridge in Rosset as saying only exceptional other contributions would do
Aspen v Elvey
Barn acquired by Mr A before cohabiting with Mrs E, transferred in her sole name when they separated 10 years later Mr A contributed £65,000 to its conversion at the time he was living in a caravan- could not be intended as a gift, Mrs E knew this
Burns v burns
A woman had for 17 years made substantial contributions to the household- looked after children and home, decorating, paid rates and purchased chattels- held no interest in the home
Yaxley v Gotts
Y planned to buy a converted property and refurbish it. He approached Brownie Gotts for a loan, Brownie said he would buy the property himself but Y could have ground floor flat if he did work on the other flats, Y agreed. Property actually bought by Brownies son- constructive trust
Parris v Williams
Agreement between friends, P to purchase 2 flats, W subject to an individual voluntary arrangement- flats rented out, W did some decorating and paid some maintenance, court enforced the agreement- CICT
Geary v Rankine
More difficult to establish CITC where property is bought as an investment, held there was insufficient intention
