Trusts - of the Home Flashcards
Jones v Kernott
Developed Stack v Dowden principles further (Lord Walker/Baroness Hale)
Express declarations of trust - conclusive
If in joint names and no express declaration - presumption for equity to follow the law (JT)
Rebutted with evidence of contrary intention
If cannot deduce shares intended, consider what their intentions as reasonable and just people would have been had they thought about it at the time (imputting intention now possible)
Stack v Dowden
Presumption of a beneficial joint tenancy as “equity follows the law”.
In exceptional circumstances can be rebutted
- inequality of contribution will not, of itself, be sufficient.
Baroness Hale listed factors of relevance as Separate finances Advice/discussions at time of transfer Purpose for which home acquired Nature of relationship Presence of children How financed purchase How outgoings dealt with Characters and personalities of parties.
Lloyds Bank v Rosset
No common intention
Decorating not sufficient detrimental reliance
0% share
(Lord Bridge) PRIOR TO Jones v Kernott
Finding of an agreement to share beneficially based on evidence of express discussions PLUS to show acted to his or her detriment or altered position in reliance on that agreement for constructive trust / proprietary estoppel to arise.
No evidence, however reasonable it might have been - must rely entirely on conduct of parties if to infer a common intention to share.
Direct contributions to purchase price may by initial or mortgage installment payments.
“doubt fully if anything less will do” - criticised last line.
Infer and impute
Lord Neuberger in Stack v Dowden
Inferred intention - concluding what the parties DID intend in light of actions, statements.
Imputation - concluding what the parties would have intended as deduced from actions, statements even though they HAD no intention.
Cooke v Head
- Cohabitees to be treated in same way as spouses
- More likely to infer constructive trusts in domestic situations.
Physical work/contribution - joint enterprise
Eves v Eves
BUT for something would have been on title = intention to share
But for age would have been on title. Physical work completed in belief entitled beneficially (25%)
Supported by Grant v Edwards
But for divorce proceedings would have been on title.
Rowe v Prance
Trust existed based on earlier conversations
Richards v Dove
Where the payment was quite clearly by way of a loan there was NO beneficial interest.
Gissing v Gissing
“The court cannot devise agreements which the parties never made. The Court cannot ascribe intentions which in fact the parties never had (Lord Morris) - contrary to idea of imputted intention.
Furnishings/expenses not sufficient.
Prior to J v K
Same in Burns v Burns - no agreement + no contribution = no share.
Aspden v Elvy
POST JvD
No express agreement
Common intention objectively ascertained
25% interest acquired.
Grant v Edwards
Where there is agreement, indirect contributions will be taken into account as long as they give rise to sufficient detrimental reliance.
Household expense contributions went “over and beyond” what reasonably expected = beneficial interest acquired
Eves v Eves
Physical work was enough to be detrimental reliance
Walsh v Singh and another
Not sufficient to change career as just doing what she wanted - not detrimental reliance
But prior to J v K.
Bernard v Josephs
In deciding when cohabiting couples are to be treated as if they are married look to
nature of relationship
degree of commitment.
Midland Bank v Cooke
Indication of sharing both risk and benefit plus marriage commitment - 50% shares
