trusts of land and development of cict Flashcards
what is a common intention constructuve trust
arises when two or more unmarried parties share a common intention regarding the beneficial ownership of a property, but legal title does not reflect that common intention.
what are the 2 requirements of a cict
common intention and detrimental reliance.
common intention
need common intention of the parties, if the legal owner hasn’t given representation that the non legal owner, isnt to have a beneficial interest there is no common intention even if the non legal owner wants it – so no trust
detrimental reliance
claimant usually the non legal owner, to demonstrate that they relied on the d and on the promise/representation to there detriment
key legal maxims
2
1)Equity follows the law – when joint legal title is purchased without making an express declaration of trust as to the quantification of the beneficial interests, a court presumes joint beneficial title.
2)Equality is Equity – the quantification of the beneficial interest should match that of the legal interest, unless a claimant can demonstrate a common intention to quantify the beneficial interest differently
resulting trust in the family home
- Historically, the presumed resulting trust was the dominant mode of assigning a beneficial interest in the family home to respective cohabiting partners. - if you contribute 50 each then its a 50% beneficial interest
- However, the presumption of resulting trust would struggle to bite for other contributions, such as financial contributions to mortgage repayments or non-financial contributions related to the daily running of the family home.
- also doing it by reference to their purchase price was no longer accurate reflection of their beneficial interest (inflation)
decline of resulting trust in family home context
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107
Lloyd’s Bank v Rosset
-Lord Bridge explained [page 132] why the transition was necessary from presumed resulting trust to common intention
- people now share the house as a home, not just an investment
- if they pay the mortgage equally, but one year in one is made redundant, so the other pays 100% but the other does most of the housework
- beneficial ownership over time changed according to the common intnetion of the parties
2 cases that justify the decline of RT in family home context
stack v dowden
jones v kernott
stack v dowden
‘cohabiting couples based on mutual cooperation and compromise’
- implying that the beneficial interest can shift overtime according to the common intention – one person becomes unemployed, the other one takes over the financial contributions like bills tax etc, the other person does non financial like childcare and housework.
-One person is taking on more than half the responsibilities presumption is they should take on more than half of the beneficial interest as well
jones v kernott
-presumption of resulting trust made more sense when social and economic conditions were different and tempered by presumption of advancement
what is the cict now
see sheet
what are the 3 varients of intention
1) express intention
2) inferred intention
3) imputed intention
what is express intention
sheet
what is inferred intention
see sheet
what is imputed intention
see sheet
cict in pratice - case law in 2 categories which are
1) single ownership cases
2) joint ownership cases
single ownership cases are
3
1)Capehorn v Harris [2016]
2)Curran v Collins [2015]
3)Geary v Rankine [2012]
1)Capehorn v Harris [2016]
see sheet
single ownership
2)Curran v Collins [2015]
see sheet
single ownership
3)Geary v Rankine [2012]
see sheet
single ownership
joint ownership cases
1
stack v dowden
stack v dowden
-see sheet
applying stack in sc cases
jones v kernott
