Resulting And Constructuve

Question 1

Vandavel

Answer 1

Settlor didn’t make it clear who was to be the beneficiaries, held to be a resulting trust

Question 2

Lahia v Lahia

Answer 2

S60(3) LPA- inapplicable to voluntary transfer of land

Question 3

McGrath v Wallis

Answer 3

House purchased by father and son in sons name for occupation of both, to maximise chances of a mortgage loan

Question 4

Harwood v harwood

Answer 4

Borrowed money is prima facie the direct contribution of the borrower- can be rebutted

Question 5

Curley v Parkes

Answer 5

Payment of mortgage when under no liability will not be sufficient
A resulting Trust only arises at the moment of acquisition

Question 6

Barrett v Barrett

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Springette v Defoe

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Drake v Whipp

Answer 8

Payment of cost of initial work on property may be sufficient

Question 9

Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Paragon Finance

Answer 10

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’

Question 11

Yeoman’s Row Management

Answer 11

‘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’

Question 12

Westdeutsch Landesbank

Answer 12

(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

Question 13

Thorner v Major

Answer 13

Lord Scott expressed a desire to make use of remedial trusts

Question 14

Re Polly Peck International

Answer 14

Nourse LJ was of the view that English courts would never use a remedial constructive trust

Question 15

Bannister v Bannister

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Lyus v Prowsa

Answer 16

Purchaser of registered land agreed to be bound by an unregistered minor interest

Question 17

Re rose

Answer 17

To give effect to intention despite failure to comply with formalities

Question 18

Pettit v Pettit

Answer 18

No doctrine of ‘family property’ under English law

Question 19

Jones v Kernott

Answer 19

Rules applied years after when the relationship had broken down

Question 20

Aspen v Elvy

Answer 20

Acquisition of property and all relevant events took place some years after the couple had separated

Question 21

Gallarotti v Sebasianelli

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Laskar v Laskar

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Goodman v Gallant

Answer 23

Express declaration as to the beneficial interest will be conclusive unless there is fraud or a mistake

Question 24

Springette

Answer 24

Legal title in joint names does not amount to an express declaration of a trust of an equitable interest

Question 25

Stack v dowden

Answer 25

Express declaration could be varied by a later agreement or by proprietary estoppel

Question 26

Anif v Anwar

Answer 26

First instance case- beneficial ownership can only be affected by an express assignment of the equitable interest in writing - s53(1)(c)

Question 27

Stack v dowden

Answer 27

Presumption of an equitable joint tenancy- common intention constructive trust

Question 28

Jones v kernott

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Adekunle v Ritchie

Answer 29

May also apply to the purchase of a home by a parent and child

Question 30

Stack

Answer 30

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%

Question 31

Fowler v Barron

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Jones v kernott

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Barnes v Phillips

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Pettitt v Pettitt

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Gissing v Gissing

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Lloyds bank v Rosset

Answer 36

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

Question 37

James v Thomas

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Aspen v Elvy

Answer 38

Claimant had paid for substantial improvements to the property- very unusual set of facts- intention established

Question 39

Eves v eves

Answer 39

She was only 20

Question 40

Grant v Edwards

Answer 40

It would be prejudicial in her divorce proceedings

Question 41

Hammond v Mitchell

Answer 41

For tax reasons

Question 42

Curran v Collins

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Springette

Answer 43

The parties must actually have discussed the issue

Question 44

Midland bank v Dobson

Answer 44

Must have acted to his/ her detriment or significantly altered his position in reliance on belief

Question 45

Grant v Edwards

Answer 45

Claimant made a substantial contribution to household expenses, kept house and brought up the children. Owner could not otherwise have paid the mortgage

Question 46

Eves v eves

Answer 46

14lb sledgehammer

Question 47

Lloyd’s bank v Rosset

Answer 47

Overseeing builders, decorating- acts were of trifling value in relation to the house

Question 48

Pascoe v turner

Answer 48

Told the house was hers, spent £230 on redecoration, got the fee simple

Question 49

Greasley v Cooke

Answer 49

Failure to look for a job outside the house, got a home for life

Question 50

Geary v Rankine

Answer 50

Implied bargain-
‘Whole conduct’ approach but the result would have been the same if applied pre-kernott, therefore not clearly adopted yet but courts

Question 51

Lloyds bank v Rosset

Answer 51

Contribution that would give rise to a resulting trust is sufficient

Question 52

Huntingford v Hobbs

Answer 52

The court will give effect to an agreement as to whose contribution borrowed money is

Question 53

Irvin Blake

Answer 53

Applied Lord Bridge in Rosset- doubted anything less than direct contribution would be sufficient

Question 54

Le foe v le foe

Answer 54

Judge relied upon Lord Diplock in Gissing and he interpreted Lord Bridge in Rosset as saying only exceptional other contributions would do

Question 55

Aspen v Elvey

Answer 55

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

Question 56

Burns v burns

Answer 56

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

Question 57

Yaxley v Gotts

Answer 57

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

Question 58

Parris v Williams

Answer 58

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

Question 59

Geary v Rankine

Answer 59

More difficult to establish CITC where property is bought as an investment, held there was insufficient intention