Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Which case states that resulting trusts now have a very limited role to play in this field?
|
Jones v Kernott [2010]
|
|
|
When will a presumed intention resulting trust arise?
|
1) a property is purchased in the name of another/ property is transferred to another.
2) The non-legal owner did not intend to make a gift to the other party. |
|
|
Generally what 2 factors will trigger a resulting trust?
|
1) Direct financial contribution
2) Contribution to mortgage repayment (but only if both parties assumed liability of the mortgage at the date of acquisition) |
|
|
Generally what 2 factors will not trigger a resulting trust?
|
1) Contribution to cost of repairs and renovation.
2) Contribution to general household expenses/ domestic arrangements. |
|
|
What is the dicta of Pettitt v Pettitt?
|
Mrs Petttitt was sole legal owner.
Mr Pettitt performed renovations which increased the property's value by £1,000. HL held that there had been no direct financial contribution so he could not claim a beneficial interest under a resulting trust. -There must be expenditure aimed at acquiring a proprietary right at the time of acquisition. |
|
|
What was the dicta of Tinsley v Milligan (1993)?
|
Purchase of a house with money obtained through the sale of a jointly-owned car was a direct financial contribution capable of triggering a resulting trust.
|
|
|
Which case states that contribution to the deposit qualifies as a direct financial contribution?
|
Halifax Building Society v Brown (1995)
|
|
|
Which case states that where 2 parties take out a mortgage and both assume liability, this will be a direct financial contribution?
|
Laskar v Laskar [2008]
|
|
|
Which case states that subsequent mortgage repayments after the time of acquisition will be insufficient to qualify as a direct financial contribution if a party has not assumed liability in the first place?
|
Curley v Parkes [2004]
|
|
|
What is the changing position regarding mortgage contributions?
|
There is suggestion that repeated substantial mortgage contributions alongside the parties' intention that a beneficial interest would be created, may be sufficient to establish a resulting trust.
|
|
|
What is the general rule regarding resulting trusts and contribution to cost of repairs and renovation?
|
not direct financial contribution so insufficient.
|
|
|
Which case suggests that a particularly substantial renovation (i.e. it makes a large contribution to the value of the house) may be sufficient to trigger a resulting trust?
|
Drake v Whipp (1996)
|
|
|
Which case states that general household expenses will be insufficient to trigger a resulting trust?
|
Burns v Burns [1984]
|
|
|
Which cases states that an agreement where one party pays the mortgage and another pays the bills will be insufficient to establish a resulting trust?
|
Gissing v Gissing [1971]
|
|
|
Which case states that contribution to a joint bank account from which the mortgage is paid will not be a direct financial contribution?
|
Buggs v Buggs [2004]
|
|
|
What is the approach to quantification under a resulting trust?
|
rigid and formulaic- you get back what you put in.
the share is fixed at the time of purchase, subsequent contributions will not increase the share. |
|
|
What is the main criticism of resulting trusts?
|
They are too focused on money. They embody a distinctly property law approach aimed at certainty, and fail to take account of family dynamics.
|
|
|
Which 3 cases suggest that resulting trusts are no longer favourable in this area of law?
|
Stack v Dowden [2007]- the law has moved on to changing economic and social conditions.
Abbott v Abbott [2007]- constructive trusts are more appropriate. Jones v Kernott [2010]- resulting trusts should be removed as they are a very broad generalisation of human motivation - Lady Hale. |
