Resulting Trusts - Presumed Intention Resulting Trusts Flashcards
What are the two types of resulting trust?
- Automatic resulting trust
2. presumed intention resulting trust
What are the two circumstances where a presumed intention resulting trust arises?
- Voluntary transfer
2. contribution to purchase price
What is the presumption that arises in a presumed intention resulting trust
A rebuttable presumption that the owner intended to retain/gain a beneficial interest in the property
Which equitable maximum is relevant to presumed intention resulting trusts?
Equity is cynical - no one gives anything away for free
What is a voluntary transfer?
Where a person transfers property to another - but receives no consideration in return. (equity presumes the transferor intended to retain a beneficial interest)
When does the presumption arise with regards to a voluntary transfer?
- where there has been no consideration from the transferee
2. Where there is no confirmation from the transferor of who is entitled to the beneficial interest
Re Vinogradoff [1935]
Grandmother transferred stock into joint names of her and 4 year old granddaughter. Upon her death, it was held the stock was held on resulting trust in favour of the grandmothers estate.
What case to use to show a voluntary transfer (Personalty)
Re Vinogradoff [1935]
Law of Property Act 1925, s60(3)
If you don’t confirm that you are transferring the beneficial interest in a property, it doesn’t mean that just for that reason a resulting trust should arise.
It was originally thought that s60(3) meant the presumption did not arise in relation to voluntary transfer of land
Hodson v Marks [1971]
Shows the original analysis of LPA 1925 s 60(3) was incorrect. The presumption does arise in relation to land
What case shows that the original analysis of LPA 1925 s60(3) was incorrect?
Hodson v Marks [1971]
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013]
confirms Hodson v Marks - offshore properties were deemed to be held on resulting trust
What case shows that in a commercial context a resulting trust will be used
Laskar v Laskar
What are the two elements set out in Laskar v Lasker which will be considered when determining the commercial context?
- the purpose for which the property was purchased
2. The relationship between the parties
Dyer v Dyer [1788]
It doesn’t matter who’s name the legal title goes in, if someone else has provided some/all of the purchase money, then a resulting trust will arise in their favour
Curley v Parkes [2004]
Shows it must be direct contributions towards the purchase price - subsequent payments cannot give rise to a presumed intention resulting trust
What are the three ways the presumption can be rebutted?
- presumption of advancement
- evidence
- loan type scenario
What is the presumption of advancement?
That the first presumption (the presumption to retain a beneficial interest) can be rebutted in certain types of relationships - and it will actually be considered to be a gift.
What are the two relationship in which the presumption of advancement arises?
Father - Child
Husband - wife
Bannett v Bennett (1879)
Shows the presumption of advancement arises between father - child
What case law sought to abolish the presumption of advancement between husband - wife?
Equality Act 2010, s198, s199 (never actually brought into force)
What case shows the presumption of advances arises between father - child?
Bannett v Bennett (1879)
Fowkes v Pascoe [1875]
Shows that evidence can be used to rebut the presumption of a retained beneficial interest
What case can be used to show evidence can rebut the presumption of a retained beneficial interest?
Fowkes v Pascoe [1875]
Re Gooch (1890)
Specific reason for the transfer. Evidence was used to rebut the presumption advancement so the original presumption applied. The father retained a beneficial interest in the property.
McGrath v Wallis [1995]
a declaration showing shares between father + son was evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement and therefore the original presumption applied (father retained beneficial interest)
Lavelle v Lavelle [2004]
Transfer was done to avoid paying inheritance tax. Therefore, the evidence was used to rebut the presumption of advancement, meaning the original presumption was still in place (retained beneficial interest)
What happens in a loan type scenario?
The original presumption is rebutted, due to the contractual relationship. Remedy for non-payment would fall into contract law
Vajpeyi v Yusaf [2003]
claimant gave defendant money to buy a house. Court found this was a loan which the defendant had paid back. No resulting trust - the claimant cannot get their money back twice
Re Sharp (A Bankcrupt) [1980]
Money was lent to fund the purchase price of a property - no resulting trust could be found. The intention was the money would be paid back, so this was a loan.
