Trusts and the Home Flashcards
Section 53(2), Law of Property Act 1925
The requirement in section 53(1)(b) does not apply to resulting, implied or constructive trusts.
Section 53(1)(b) , Law of Property Act 1925
Declaration of a trust of land must be in writing or there must be written evidence of it.
On what basis can a beneficial interest be claimed?
Resulting trust
Constructive trust
Proprietary estoppel
Stack v Dowden 2007
The legal title to the house was held as joint tenants.
X (the woman) contributed 65%
Other 35% provided by a joint loan secured on the legal title held by her and Y (the man).
No restriction was entered on the register and the assumption was that they were equitable joint tenants.
Held: In this particular case the split was appropriate as X had contributed far more and the couple had kept finances rigidly separate.
General principle of joint title assumes 50/50 split, onus on claimant to prove otherwise.
Stack v Dowden principles to be considered when assessing split of proceeds from sale.
(a) any advice or discussions at the time of the transfer which cast light upon their intentions
(b) the reasons why the home was acquired in their joint names
(c) the reasons why (if it be the case) the survivor was authorised to give a receipt for the capital moneys
(d) the purpose for which the home was acquired
(e) the nature of the parties’ relationship
(f) whether they had children for whom they both had responsibility to provide a home
(g) how the purchase was financed, both initially and subsequently
(h) how the parties arranged their finances, whether separately or together or a bit of both
(i) how they discharged the outgoings on the property and their other household expenses.
Jones v Kernott 2011
Parties purchased house together, Jones provided deposit, remainder of mortgage secured in both names, as was title to property.
Eight years later Kernott moved out and ceased contributing to mortgage.
14 years later (Jones having looked after two children in that time) property sold, man claimed half.
Held: Prima facie, Stack v Dowden applied.
More to consider since that decision was made.
Correct test was what was ‘fair and just’.
Kernott ceased paying bills, Jones provided 80% of equity and received no maintenance for children.
90/10 split ordered.
Laskar v Laskar 2008
A wished to purchase property at reduced rate under council scheme.
Had daughter assist with purchase, unmanageable alone.
House let to tenants.
A and B (Daughter) had severe falling out.
B sought equity in property and wished to apply Stack v Dowden (50/50) and proceeds of rent.
Held: Property purchased as investment so Stack did not apply.
B contributed nothing to upkeep of property, which absorbed much of the rental profit.
Initially awarded 5%, reevaluated at 33%, but no more and, most importantly, distinguishing Stack.
