Unmarried Family Flashcards
What is the presumption if the house is held in joint names?
That equity will follow the law, as per Stack v Dowden.
If this presumption cannot be rebutted, what is the outcome?
a 50/50 equitable share of the house
What are the two ways the presumption can be disproved?
At the outset and Ambulatory
If they have rebutted the presumption, but there is no clear manner of division, what can the courts do?
First, we must try to INFER their intention
How can we infer their intention?
Objectively from their conduct. We conclude the shares from what the court consider fair from the whole course of dealing
If we cannot infer, what do we do then?
We can impute the intention using all facts of the case.
This was a point of controversy in Jones v Kernott - not as to whether the court CAN do this, but as to which one was actually being applied.
What if the house is in a SOLE NAME?
We have two grounds by which a third party can challenge the equity of the house - as it is assumed that equity will follow the law.
What is the first type for sole name cases?
RESULTING TRUST - If we can prove that the party contributed to the PURCHASE price of the house, we can give them shares like that
What is the second type for SOLE NAME cases?
Constructive Trusts - These require a common intention and detrimental reliance.
We have cases such as Eves v Eves where the man lied that his wife was too young to be on title. She relied on that being the only reason and spent time and money renovating the house. Got a 25% share.
We also have cases like Burns v Burns where, despite a 19 year relationship, she was unable to use a constructive trust due to the lack of common intention and detrimental reliance.
Burns seen as reinforcing patriarchy.
What is required for proprietary Estoppel?
Acting to detriment
In reliance of Belief
Which was known or encouraged by other
That they had, or were going to have property rights.
Pascoe v Turner
P meets T she moves in, and refuses to marry him.
He later meets someone else, and he assures her “house will still be yours”
Relying on this, she spends 25% of her savings on repairs.
He later tries to renege
PE stopped him.
Lissimore v Downing
Rock and Roll fella meets Pharmacy girl.
She lives with him for 8 years.
Break up, he tells her to leave. She claims property interest.
Her claims: Promise = “Lady of the manor” “don’t worry about money”.
Detriment = giving up job.
Court:
Words are vague - not enough.
Even if they were, no detriment. Willingly gave up job, and not like job was a career.
