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;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Joint Deposit Accounts
|
allowsthe transferor or depositor alone to keep control over the money in the account during lifetimebut which displays the intention that the balance should go to the other partyshould he survive him.
Money in this account can be subj to a resulting trust in favour of the testator's estate if not done properly Way of bypassing Succession Act requirements. |
|
|
Ire position
|
Eng, Canada and Aus signif diff approach to Ire (and poss more sensible). Ire adopteda more restrictive approach to this policy question and often succeeded inarriving at a result which might be quite contrary to the transferor's actualintentions. Ironic because presumed resulting trusts are meant to give effect to the intentions of the person
|
|
|
Owens v. Greene [1932] IR 225
|
Ire's stumbling block
Deceased kept money in joint acc for himself and relative andanor with himself and Father O
Court held open to the plaintiffs to seek to rebut thepresumption of a resulting trust by estb that it was the testator's intention then and there to make a gift of the money. |
|
|
Russell v Scott (1936) 55 CLR 440
|
Got around Owens
no intention to benefit during lifetime but by placing acc in joint names gave a present right of survivorship |
|
|
Lynchv Burke [1990] 1 IR 1 HC
|
Lady made joint acc for herself and niece who came over from Scot andsigned for joint acc --> contract. Dispute bet niece and pla. Pla got everything in the will.
held deceased had intended that by right of survivorship would get money. Equitable res in favour of estate = rebutted. Felt obliged by Owens to hold trans as invalid gift and unsuccessful att to make testamentary disposition. |
|
|
AIB Finance Ltd v Sligo County Council [1995] 1 ILRM 81
|
Priest set up joint acc with CoCo
Court found for resulting trust in favour of estate at most could be termed an incomplete gift. |
|
|
Lynch v Burke [1995] 2 IR 159 (SC)
|
Overrule Owens.
entitled to claim as party to a contract itwould be paradoxical ifthe doctrine was allowed to defeat the clear intention of the donor as found bythe trial judge Court could have just disting Owens but decided to overrule thus giving this case further reach. |
|
|
Post-lynch
|
Very few decisions in this area since and could be interp as vs Lynch.
|
|
|
O’Meara v Bank of Scot 2011 IEHC 402
|
2 separate depositaccounts. Husb and wife. Husb dies. Husb put money into joint account ofhimself and wife --> prima facie presumption of advancement.
Laffoy J could have just accepted pres of advancement but went further andsaid Lynch should be solely interp oncontract grounds. More restrictive approach. Biehler doesn’tthink that Laffoy J’s approach is correct but it does add an element ofuncertainty |
|
|
Capper - ‘Survivorship Rights in Joint DepositAccounts’
|
Contract Theory. Thinks that consideration has been provided on behalf of all parties. Arg that Woods' theory lacks authority to back up.
|
|
|
Woods - ‘Joint Deposit Accounts and the ConditionalGift Theory’
|
Arg that gift is made to B subj to condition that A dies. Says that wording in joint deposit receipt implies a beneficial interest also that on opening account is conferring an equitable assignment not subj to formality requirements
|
