Constructive Trusts

Front 1

Cohabitation cases are almost certainly CT, unless contrary intention can be inferred from whole course of dealing.

Back 1

Stack v Dowden

Hint 1

65% money from W, 35% joint loan secured against the joint title. No restriction entered on register - assumption of equitable joint tenancy.

Prima facie, conveyance in joint names means 50:50 split.

However, on the facts, uneven split was upheld. Couple had kept finances rigidly separate, and the split was very uneven. Justified 65:35 split.

Front 2

Express assurances must relate to ownership and have been acted upon in reliance.

Back 2

Lloyds Bank v Rossett

Hint 2

H & W decided to buy a farmhouse. W understood purchase money was to come from family trust, and that this was only reason for H being sole legal owner.

H & W both contributed to renovating property. Trust would not cover entire purchase - H got mortgage for remainder. W unaware.

H defaulted on payments, bank sought possession. W claimed beneficial interest, binding due to actual occ.

HL said no interest.

Front 3

Implied common intention - application of S v D.

Back 3

Abbott v Abbott

Hint 3

Application of Stack v Dowden to a situation with one legal owner, and a claim by a second party for an equitable interest.

CA overstepped the operation of resulting trust doctrine. Applying the more flexible constructive trust.

Front 4

Intention objectively determined (deception by representor)

Back 4

Eves v Eves

Hint 4

Deception (age)

Eves bought house and was sole registered owner, having provided all purchase money. Made an excuse to girlfriend (Janet) that she would have been on the register if she had been 21. Girlfriend did heavy work improving the house in reliance on the statement.

Held that D (Eves) held the property on trust for himself and the claimant (Janet), with 3/4 and 1/4 shares respectively.

Front 5

Common intention objectively determined

Back 5

Grant v Edwards

Hint 5

Common Intention

E bought a house to live in with G 'as though married'. Paid the deposit on a house, and most of the mortgage repayments. G contributed to household expenses, provided housekeeping and brought up the children. E and his bro were registered proprietors. Told G she couldn't go on title register as it would interfere with her ongoing matrimonial proceedings with her husband. This was an excuse.

Held that G was entitled to a beneficial half share.

E's statement about the matrimonial proceedings being the only bar to her title could only be explained in terms of a common intention that G should have an interest. E had made a representation as to the common intention, and G had relied on it to her detriment.

Front 6

Anything less than contribution to acquisition unlikely to suffice.

Back 6

Burns v Burns

Hint 6

Two partners had lived together for 19 years, 17 in the property in question. Claimant had made no financial contribution to the property acquisition. She had, hoever, brought up the children, performed domestic duties, paid household expenses and for internal fittings etc.

No interest in property.

No evidence of common intention. Such intention might be inferred where the contributions to domestic expenses by one party had enabled the acquisition of the property by the other to go ahead, but that was not the case here. The expenses were not 'referable to the acquisition of the house'.

Questionable authority in light of shift in judicial attitude since. See Abbott v Abbott [2008].

Front 7

Quantification of beneficial share - court can impute intention where inference is impossible. Change in intentions may licence change in size of shares.

Back 7

Jones v Kernott

Hint 7

Property bought with joint mortgage. Shared household expenses over 8 years of occupancy. Husband then moved out and made no further contribution. On sale 14 years later, contributions were 9:1 to the wife.

Uneven split upheld.

Court followed S v D - where parties intentions have altered, so can the share.

Front 8

Application of S v D - resulting trust analysis

Back 8

Laskar v Laskar

Hint 8

Application of Stack v Dowden - resulting trust

A wanted to buy a property for investment purposes, but couldn't raise the capital. In order to secure a mortgage, she transferred the property jointly into her and her daughter's names.

As the property was bought as an investment, the presumption that each joint tenant was entitled to an equal share of the interest would not apply. A resulting trust was imposed, and the interest apportioned based on contribution to purchase price.

Front 9

Quantification - Failure to specify the quantum of shares not fatal to CT. Shares inferred from whole course of conduct.

Back 9

Oxley v Hiscock

Hint 9

Some agreement will suffice. Shares determined as much by other factors.

CA - failure to specify the quantum of each beneficial interest no fatal - must merely be some agreement to share beneficial entitlement.

Within the domestic context, any financial contribution will satisfy the requirement of money payment - the SHARE is determined as much by other factors.

Front 10

Where not a cohabiting couple, equity presumed to follow the law. Presumption defeated by unequal contributions, unless JT expressly declared.

Back 10

Lake v Craddock

Front 11

Express agreement as to shares is conclusive

Back 11

Goodman v Gallant