Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
First consider whether Married or civil partnership
and resulting trust - 53 (2) |
matrimonial causes at 1973
civil partnership act 2004 stack v dowden - not appropriate with family home |
|
|
Two legal owners
Q. size of share When easy? Equality? |
Pettitt v pettitt- express declaration of beneficial interest-note needs 53(1)(c) to work Gissing v gissing
Stack v Dowden - presumption (money not enough itself to reject) -clarified by Jones v Kernott |
|
|
Jones v Kernott steps
|
start point JT in LT and ET
then rebutted if Common intention otherwise at time of acquisition or later CI objective deduced (reasonably understood - Gisling v Gisling) the split is what the court deems fair unless express - Oxley v Hiscock |
|
|
Stack v Dowden reasons
|
Contributions
discussions relationships outgoings personalities children fiances |
|
|
Cases on this
Folwer v barron Adekunle v Ritchie Laskar v Laskar |
even if paid all mortage and purchase price
the primary purpose is important Stack v Dowden not applicable in investments |
|
|
One person has title
Presumption rebut when oral agreement but.. Questions from Gissing v Gissing |
100% - Gissing v Gissing
Must be about ownership- "our flat.."=shared occupation not ownership- Rosset. 1. whether C can est. any interest 2. How to quantify that interest |
|
|
ECICT
needs to be an express conversation at time of acquisition or exceptionally later 50:50 /Half yours excuses count (otherwise would have agreed) |
Clough v Killey / Hammon v mitchel
|
|
|
1. Whether C can est. any interest
Thomson v Humfrey Walsh v singh Morris v Morris doesn't matter if intimate or not |
-peformance of household duties, paying a bills, painting and repairing, and purchase of chattles
-giving up her job and assisting legal owner all not enough Gallarotti v Sevastianelli |
|
|
2. What interest to give - detrimental reliance
-but they dont need to be expected by other party -not just not continuing something must give up a beneficial interest |
Rosset - so that its unconsiconable to deny equitable right
Parris v Williams Thomson v Humphrey |
|
|
Proprietary Estopple
Clear enough but clear on the interest to be had |
Thorner v Major - objective stds
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row |
