Resulting Trusts

Question 1

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT -

General rule?

Answer 1

If A voluntarily transfers property to B i.e. transfers it to B for no consideration, it’s presumed A did not intend to make a gift of the property to B i.e. that B holds the property on a resulting trust for A

Question 2

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting Presumed RT

Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington London Borough Council [1996]

Answer 2

• Lord Browne-Wilkinson noted the presumption is ‘easily rebutted’. Two ways to rebut it:
  (a) By evidence that a contrary result was intended
  (b) By the presumption of advancement.

Question 3

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting Presumed RT

Stanley v Kieran [2011]

Answer 3

IESC affirmed the presumption and the two ways that it can be rebutted.

Question 4

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended

General rule?

Answer 4

If presumption arises, presumes A didn’t intend to benefit B. But can rebut if proved gift intended. Intended if:

(a) The transferor intended to benefit the transferee
(b) The transferor intended the transferee to hold the property on trust for benefit of someone else

Question 5

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Joint Deposit Accounts

General Rule?

Answer 5

Scenario: A opens a bank acc in his and B’s name. A retains dominion over the account. A intends that on his death B will get the money in the acc. A dies. In his will, he leaves all his property to C.
 Who gets it? B or C?
 A transferred it to B for no consideration so a presumption of a resulting trust in favour of A’s estate arises meaning C gets it. But can the testamentary intention that B will get it rebut the presumption?

Question 6

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Joint Deposit Accounts

Owens v Greene [1932] - Originally no.

Answer 6

• Originally, a mere testamentary intention would not rebut the presumption of RT in a joint acc scenario

Question 7

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Joint Deposit Accounts

Lynch v Burke [1995] Change in law - Scottish Niece

Answer 7

• Lady opened bank acc w niece who travelled from Scotland to open it + sign all necessary documents.
• Then left all property to P. Who owned the money in the joint acc? SC held the niece did.
• Presumption that the joint acc holder holds a resulting trust for the estate of the deceased is rebutted by evidence that the intentions of the deceased were inconsistent with the presumption.

Question 8

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Joint Deposit Accounts

Gilvarry v Maher [2014] - Mutual Attendance - Contractual relationship

Answer 8

• Held as a result of Lynch, a bank is contractually bound to both acc holders where they attended the bank to open the acc together. Thus, as a matter of contract, the surviving acc holder is entitled to the balance

Question 9

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Joint Deposit Accounts

O’Meara v Bank of Scotland [2011] - Uninvolved top-up acc

Answer 9

• Held while the presumption of advancement applied in relation to one joint acc, allowing the P wife to claim the money, she’d no involvement in the second one used to top up the other acc in the arrangement bw the bank and the deceased so P couldn’t rely on Lynch in relation to that account.

Question 10

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Where Property is Voluntarily Transferred for an Illegal Purpose

General rule?

Answer 10

Scenario: A voluntarily transferred property to B for illegal purpose + now A wants to reclaim it. He should be precluded from using the illegal purpose to support presumption of a RT: didn’t come to equity w clean hands.

Question 11

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Where Property is Voluntarily Transferred for an Illegal Purpose

Tinsley v Milligan [1994

Answer 11

• P + D jointly bought house. House in P’s name only so effectively D transferred a property (50% interest in the house) to P for no consideration. P + D understood they’d be joint beneficial owners of the house.
• Purpose of this (P aware) to allow D claim social welfare. They fell out, D blew whistle, P left house
• P sought possession claiming sole ownership. D claimed P held the house on trust for them in equal shares
• HOL held for D: he was seeking to raise a presumption of a resulting trust + did so by proving she contributed to the purchase price + parties understood they’d own the house jointly.
• Held the reason for putting the property in P’s name irrelevant to D’s claim of a resulting trust.
• Strong dissents in this case: D hadn’t come to equity with clean hands.

Question 12

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Where Property is Voluntarily Transferred for an Illegal Purpose

Silverwood v Silverwood [1997] - Grandkids - T&M

Answer 12

• Woman transferred money into grandkids bank accs to claim SW. Estate argued they held money on resulting trust for the estate. Held a RT arose as executor didn’t rely on an illegality to establish a RT

Question 13

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Where Property is Voluntarily Transferred for an Illegal Purpose

Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC overruled Tinsley - PP - Seriousness - Intention - Culpability

Answer 13

• P sought return of money he’d given D to place bets on bank share prices on foot of D’s insider info
• Info didn’t materialise + betting didn’t happen: SC ordered the return of the money i.e. didn’t accept D’s defence that he shouldn’t have to pay it back as the contract was illegal.
• Public policy test: Is it disproportionate to refuse P relief he’d otherwise be entitled (if not for illegality) to as matter of PP? Must consider seriousness of illegality + intention + contrast in parties culpability

Question 14

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving Gift was Intended - Where Property is Voluntarily Transferred for an Illegal Purpose

Quinn v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation [2015] - Similar to P&M

Answer 14

• Similar finding: Quinn not able to rely on illegality of the contracts to side step guarantees

Question 15

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer

What does Delany have to say re the general rule?

Answer 15

Delany: The presumption of advancement involves the inference being drawn that a gift was intended because of the relationship between the parties. Presumption arises where bc of the relationship, the donor or purchaser
is under an obligation recognised in equity to provide for the person to whom the property is given

Question 16

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Man to Wife

Pettitt v Pettitt [1970]

Answer 16

• Lord Diplock criticised this rule as being based on inferences that an earlier generation of judges drew as to the most likely intentions of earlier generations of spouses.

Question 17

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Man to Wife

W v W [1981

Answer 17

Irish SC recognised this type of transfer as raising the presumption of advancement

Question 18

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Man to Wife

Malone v McQuaid [1998]

Answer 18

O’Sullivan J stated the presumption of advancement was stronger in father/child than man/wife.

Question 19

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Man to Child

Shephard v Cartwright [1955] - Shares to Child - PoA

Answer 19

• Where a man buys shares + registered in child’s name, no RT but a presumption of advancement.

Question 20

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Man to Child

Kenny v Kenny [2019]: PoA > RT

Answer 20

Held a RT may be rebutted by the presumption of advancement bw father/child.

Question 21

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Woman to Child

Bennett v Bennett [1879]

Answer 21

• Held it didn’t extend to the mother bc the duty of providing for the children rested on the father.

Question 22

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Woman to Child

McCabe v Ulster Bank [1939]

Answer 22

• Held where a woman transfers property to her child, the presumption of advancement arises only if she’d assumed the father’s obligations to provide.

Question 23

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - In Loco Parentis to Child

Shephard v Cartwright [1955 - Loco = POA

Answer 23

If a person is in loco parentis to a child and transfers property to him, presumed he intended to make a gift:
Set out this proposition - no RT but a presumption of advancement

Question 24

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - In Loco Parentis to Child

McCabe v Ulster Bank [1939]:

Answer 24

This principle extends to a woman in loco parentis to a child.

Question 25

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Proving that the Presumption of Advancement arises in a Voluntary Transfer - Types of VT that give rise to PoA - Between Commercial Parties

Fitzpatrick v Criminal Assets Bureau [1998]

Answer 25

• Presumption of advancement doesn’t extend to those of a shareholder and the company in which he owns shares or the relationship bw an individual and the company he manages, controls or operates.

Question 26

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Evidence Gift not Intended

Anson v Anson [1953] - H/W - “Immediate problem”

Answer 26

• Man guaranteed debt owed to bank by wife. Presumption rebutted: he made it clear he didn’t intend to ultimately relieve her just to simply solve an immediate problem.

Question 27

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Evidence Gift not Intended

RF v MF [1985] - Reconcile

Answer 27

• Man bought property in his and wife’s name on basis his W said she’d reconcile their marriage
• She didn’t: Held presumption rebutted as was clear he wouldn’t have agreed to the transaction if she
  hadn’t promise to live in the house / reconcile their marriage. Must be intention at time of transaction.

Question 28

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Prior or Contemporaneous Acts or Statements

Shephard v Cartwright [1955 - Subsequent Acts of Tranferee ONly

Answer 28

• Deceased transferred shares in co to kids. Then he dealt w the shares, at one stage crediting the profits of the dealings to a bank acc in the kids names. However, later applied the funds to his own purposes.
• His estate argued his subsequent conduct rebutted the presumption of advancement.
• Rejected: Evidence of acts + declarations subsequent to the original transfer is admissible only against the person who did the act or made the declaration i.e. has to be acts of the kids relied on!! Not his own!

Question 29

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Prior or Contemporaneous Acts or Statements

RM v MF [1985] Ireland followed Shep v Cartwright

Answer 29

• Ireland followed Shephard: Subsequent acts of the transferee are admissible to rebut the presumption.
  Has to be the kids/wife/etc. who do/say something contrary to the presumption of a gift.

Question 30

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Evidence of an Illegeal Purpose underlying the Transfer

General rule?

Answer 30

Scenario: A voluntary transfers property to his wife/kids, but for an illegal purpose. The presumption of advancement applies here. To rebut it, A would have to adduce evidence of his illegal purpose to prove this

Question 31

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Evidence of an Illegeal Purpose underlying the Transfer

Parkes v Parkes [1980 - Wife - Land Commission

Answer 31

• P bought land. As he wasn’t an Irish citizen before the land could be registered in his name, needed consent of the Land Commission. To obviate this requirement, he transferred the land into wife’s name
• P sought to recover land. HC held he could not adduce evidence of his illegal purpose for transferring the property to rebut the presumption of adv: he put it in his wife’s name to evade the law on transfer of land

Question 32

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Evidence of an Illegeal Purpose underlying the Transfer

Gascoigne v Gascoigne [1918] - Wife - Creditors

Answer 32

• Husband put house in wife’s name to avoid creditors. The presumption of advancement applied + not rebutted as husband couldn’t take advantage of own dishonesty

Question 33

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Rebutting the PoA - Evidence of an Illegal Purpose underlying the Transfer

Tribe v Tribe [1996] - Shares - Purpose not performed

Answer 33

In many cases, the illegal purpose already carried out before he sought to recover the prop. But if the illegal purpose hasn’t been carried out before seeking recovery, he may adduce evidence of it to rebut presumption:
- P transferred shares in a co to his son for purposes of defrauding his creditors.
- The issues that might’ve led to claims were resolved: he paid off his creditors. Sought recovery.
- Held the presumption of advancement was rebutted by evidence of P’s intention to defraud his creditors: a person who transferred prop for illegal purpose can still recover it provided he withdraws from the
transaction before the illegal purpose has been wholly or partly performed.

Question 34

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants

General Rule?

Answer 34

Usually property disputes bw spouses, civil partners + qualified cohabitants governed by Family Law Acts + Civil Partnerships + Obligations of Cohabitants acts. What if not married/civil partners/qualified cohabitants?
Who owns the house? If A transferred property (50% interest) to B for no consideration, presumed RT arises

Question 35

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants - Direct Contributions

C v C [1976] - Dep - Some Mort

Answer 35

• Fam home in H’s sole name. W made direct contributions by paying deposit + some mortgage repayments
• Held W entitled to one-half of the beneficial interest in the property.

Question 36

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants - Direct Contributions

McC v McC [1986]:

Answer 36

Irish SC endorsed the C v C principles.

Question 37

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants - Indirect Contributions

W v W [1981] - Release from Obligation

Answer 37

This is a financial contribution towards a general family fund. This generates an interest.
- Held it’s where a wife contributes to a general family fund/household expenses thus releasing H from an obligation he otherwise would’ve had making it possible for him to pay the mortgage instalments.

Question 38

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants - Improvements

W v W [1981

Answer 38

Held a financial contribution towards improving another’s property doesn’t generate an interest

Question 39

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants - Improvements

NAD v TD [1985]: - 1/3 cost of build

Answer 39

W contributed 1/3 of cost of building the fam home on land owned by H. Held this didn’t entitled W to an interest in the house.

Question 40

Resulting Trusts - Presumed RT - Property Rights of Cohabitants - Work in the Home/Care of Children

N v N [1992] and L v L [1992]: Unpaid - 2010 Act

Answer 40

Unpaid work in the home incl. caring for kids doesn’t generate an interest.
From now on, property disputes bw civil partners and cohabitants are governed under the 2010 Act.

Question 41

Automatic Resulting Trusts - An Express Trust (Including a Secret Trust and a Purpose Trust) Fails

General rule?

Answer 41

If an express trust fails, the property automatically results to the settlor or if he’s dead, his estate.

Question 41

Automatic Resulting Trusts - An Express Trust (Including a Secret Trust and a Purpose Trust) Fails

General rule?

Answer 41

If an express trust fails, the property automatically results to the settlor or if he’s dead, his estate.

Question 42

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Quistclose Trusts: The Purpose of the Loan Fails

Barclay’s Bank v Quistclose Investments [1970] - Pay dividend - Separate A/c

Answer 42

• D lent money to a company for purpose of enabling it pay dividends. The money was paid into a bank acc that was specifically opened for that purpose. Co then went insolvent so dividends couldn’t be paid.
• P wanted to use the money to discharge debts owed to it by the co. D said it’d an eq interest in the money.
• Held if money is loaned for a particular purpose, the lender has an equitable right to see that the money is applied to that purpose. If the purpose fails and the parties have agreed expressly or impliedly that in such
  circs the money should be repaid to the lender, the money will be held on trust for the lender.

Question 43

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Quistclose Trusts: The Purpose of the Loan Fails

General Rule?

Answer 43

Scenario: A lends B money. They agree it’s to be used for a particular purpose. The loan is not secured. It then
becomes impossible to use the money for the agreed purpose. B becomes insolvent  Quistclose trust for A.

Question 44

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Quistclose Trusts: The Purpose of the Loan Fails

Re McKeown [1974] Purpose > “trust” - Arb award

Answer 44

Once it’s clear the funds are to be used for a particular purpose, not necessary the word ‘trust’ be used:

• P lent money to M to enable him pay fees to obtain an arbitration award made in his favour. Loan given on basis the money would be applied to this purpose + P would then be paid once M got his award.
• M declared bankrupt before award granted. P argued the value of the loan was held on trust for him.
• Held for P despite no language of a trust used: sufficient money lent for specific purpose + made clear.

Question 45

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Quistclose Trusts: The Purpose of the Loan Fails

Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] - Not free - Transfer itself generates interest

Answer 45

• Lord Millett said a loan for a specific purpose where a borrower isn’t free to apply money for any other purpose gives rise to fiduciary obligations on borrower which a court of equity will enforce.
• When money lent, lender gets equitable right to see it’s applied for the purpose thus prevents the borrower from getting any beneficial interest in the money at least while the purpose is still capable of being applied
• Thus Millett believed a RT for the lender arises as soon as the money is transferred to the borrow

Question 46

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Quistclose Trusts: The Purpose of the Loan Fails

Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd v O’Halloran [2013] - Not sufficiently specific purpose

Answer 46

• HC found although P had paid over funds for completion of a project, it couldn’t be said there was an intention that the funds were for a specific purpose and no other.
• Held P hadn’t established the facts of the case fitted within the ambit of the Quistclose trust.

Question 47

Automatic Resulting Trusts - The Beneficial Interest in the Property Transferred has not been Exhausted

What would be examples where this could arise?

Answer 47

Scenario 1: A transfers property to B on trust for the maintenance of C. C dies. Upon this event, there’s a surplus of funds remaining in the trust.
Scenario 2: A transfers property to B on trust for the education of C. C completes his education. Upon this
event, there’s a surplus of funds remaining in the trust.

Historically, C or C’s estates would’ve been entitled to it: Re Sanderson’s Trusts [1857]:

More recent cases draw a distinction between cases where the beneficiary is dead and those where he’s alive: Re Trusts of the Abbott Fund [1900] etc.

Question 48

Automatic Resulting Trusts - The Beneficial Interest in the Property Transferred has not been Exhausted

Re Trusts of the Abbott Fund [1900] - Deaf & Dumb - Died = RT

Answer 48

• Trust created for maintenance of 2 deaf + dumb women. No provision for disposal of surplus on death of survivor. Held no enforceable trust: on their death, a RT of the surplus arose in favour of contributor.

Question 49

Automatic Resulting Trusts - The Beneficial Interest in the Property Transferred has not been Exhausted

Re Andrews Trust [1905] - Ed of Priests Kids - Divided among them

Answer 49

• Trust created for education of dead clergyman’s kids. Deceased’s friends contributed to it.
• After kids completed education, there was a surplus. Held the surplus should be divided equally amongst the children i.e. no resulting trust in favour of the contributors automatically arose.

Question 50

Automatic Resulting Trusts - The Beneficial Interest in the Property Transferred has not been Exhausted

Re Osaba [1978] - Wife (D) Mother (D) - Daughter (E) - No RT

Answer 50

• Testator left property to his widow on trust to be used for her maintenance and for education of daughter up to university and maintenance of his mum. When he died, mum already dead + wife died shortly after.
• Daughter finished university, surplus left. T had kids from previous marriage seeking their portion of it.
• Held T’s overriding intention was to provide for his mother, wife and daughter thus no RT arose.
• Noted if the beneficiaries are living, usually no RT as the major purpose of providing help and benefit for the beneficiaries can still be carried out even after means accomplished. But if dead, RT usually arises.

Question 51

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell [1982]

Answer 51

• Defined an UA as 2+ persons together for one/more common purposes that aren’t business ones, w mutual duties and obligations and its funds rests and on what terms and which can be joined or left at will.

Question 52

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

If an association advanced a charitable purpose, on its dissolution court may exercise its cy- pres jurisdiction and apply the surplus as near as possible to that purpose. But if it’s a non-charitable purpose, what happens?
Neville Estates v Madden [1962] - Peronal Contractual Approach

Answer 52

• Held a gift to such an association is a gift to the existing members alive on the date of the disposition.
• Thus any surplus on dissolution should be distributed amongst members alive on the date of dissolution.
• This should be done in accordance w their contractual rights + liabilities, otherwise equal distribution

Question 53

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

In some cases suggest it may also be distributed to 3rd parties who contributed to the assoc’s funds; Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] - Anonymous donations - RT even if inconvenient

Answer 53

• Marine cadets injured/killed in crash. Mayors of 3 towns appealed for contributions to a fund that’d benefit those injured and provide a memorial to those killed. Mainly anonymous donations. Surplus arose.
• Held that a RT arose in favour of the contributors. He recognised the inconvenience of such a finding, but noted each contributor intended to contribute a specific purpose and once attained/no longer attainable each contributor had an interest by way of a resulting trust. Rejected crown’s claim to the surplus.

Question 54

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

Re West Sussex Constabulary’s Widows & Children (1930) Trusts [1971] - Collection - Entertainments - Don/leg’s

Answer 54

• Funds comprised (i) proceeds of collections (ii) proceeds of entertainments and raffles (iii) donations and legacies. Held the first 2 categories went bona vacantia to the Crown as they represented absolute out and out gifts while the third category ones were held on RT for the donors or their estates.

Question 55

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

Scenario: Action group set up to get a by-pass. Received following contributions over 10 years:
(1) €10k from anonymous donations on the streets and fundraising events
(2) €10k by way of a legacy from a local businessman, Montgomery
(3) €10k by way of its members’ annual subscriptions
By-pass now completed. Dissolving. €6k surplus. How is it distributed? Number of alternatives, what is the first?

Answer 55

(a) Where the contributor parted with his money, he disclaimed entitlement to it e.g. categories (i) and (ii) in Re West Sussex Constabulary’s Widows & Children (1930) Trusts [1971]. Upon dissolution, a share
proportionate to his contribution geos to the State as bona vacantia.
However, s.48 Charities Act 1961 enacts: Property given for a specific charitable/non-charitable purpose that fails shall be applicable cy-pres by a court as if given for charitable purposes where it belongs:
(1) To a donor who, after such ads/inquiries as are reasonable are made, can’t be identified or found or
(2) To a donor who executed a written disclaimer of his right to have the property returned.
Effect of s.48 is that on the dissolution of an unincorp assoc, part of its surplus that represents the proceeds of:
(i) Cash collections from collecting boxes or other means not adapted for distinguishing bw gifts or
(ii) Any lottery, competition, entertainment, sale or similar money-raising activity
May be applied cy-pres.

Question 56

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

Scenario: Action group set up to get a by-pass. Received following contributions over 10 years:
(1) €10k from anonymous donations on the streets and fundraising events
(2) €10k by way of a legacy from a local businessman, Montgomery
(3) €10k by way of its members’ annual subscriptions
By-pass now completed. Dissolving. €6k surplus. How is it distributed? Number of alternatives, what is the second?

Answer 56

b) When the contributor parted with his money he did so on trust for the association’s purposes e.g. category (iii) in Re West Sussex Constabulary’s Widows & Children (1930) Trusts [1971]. Upon dissolution, a RT
arises in favour of the contributor or his estate in proportion to the contribution that he made.

Question 57

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association

Scenario: Action group set up to get a by-pass. Received following contributions over 10 years:
(1) €10k from anonymous donations on the streets and fundraising events
(2) €10k by way of a legacy from a local businessman, Montgomery
(3) €10k by way of its members’ annual subscriptions
By-pass now completed. Dissolving. €6k surplus. How is it distributed? Number of alternatives, what is the third?

Answer 57

c) When the contributor parted with his money, he did so pursuant to a form of contract bw him and the association’s members, the contract being the assoc’s constitution/rules. Upon dissolution, the way in which his share is dealt w is governed by that contract. Cases show division amongst the members will be effected unless the contract provides otherwise. Only surviving members are entitled to a share.

Question 58

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association - Scenario Three

Re Buckinghamshire Constabulary Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund Society [1979] - COntractual - Eq distribution - Crown BV on complete failure

Answer 58

• Fund established to provide benefits to widows and orphans of deceased police officers + payments on death of member/during sickness. Only the association’s members contributed to it. Surplus on dissolution
• Held the surplus should be divided amongst the surviving members. Only if the association became almost obsolete e.g. no members or only one left would the Crown be entitled bona vacantia.
• Held the right of a surviving member was a contractual one and no claim could be made on basis of a RT.

Question 59

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association - Scenario Three

Tierney v Tough [1914] - In proportion

Answer 59

Should the association’s assets be divided equally or in proportion to the contributions that members made?
- Held the surplus should be distributed in proportion to the contributions existing members had made

Question 60

Automatic Resulting Trusts - Surplus of Funds on the Dissolution of an Unincorporated Association - Scenario Three

Feeney v MacManus [1937] Contrast Tierney v Tough [1914] - GPO Dining CLub - Equal dis - On date of dissolution!

Answer 60

• Held the surplus should be distributed in equal among surviving members of the GPO’s Dining Club and the personal reps of those members that had died since the date of dissolution of the association.