Ws4 Family Property

Front 1

Resulting trusts arise in two circumstances:

1. A pays B or pays wholly or partly for property in B's name or jointly in A and B's name; there is a presumption that A did not intend a gift to B; the money is held on trust for A (equivalent to contribution)

2. A transfers property to B on express trust but the trust(s) declared do not exhaust the beneficial interest

Back 1

Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC (1996)

Front 2

Case where woman opened bank account for under-18 nephew
- gave instructions she alone was to operate the account
- presumption was of resulting trust

Back 2

Thavorn v BCCI (1985)

Front 3

A couple were in a lottery syndicate and split; Mrs A carried on paying Mr A's share; when the syndicate won, Mr A's creditors were unable to get money – held it was on resulting trust for Mrs A

Back 3

Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams (1999)

Front 4

X paid 55% of yacht held in Y's name; held that Y held 55% on resulting trust for X

Back 4

Parrot v Parkin

Front 5

A mother gave nearly all of life savings for daughter to buy house; resulting trust presumed as unlikely to be intended as a gift

Back 5

Sekhon v Alissa (1989)

Front 6

For an equitable interest under a resulting trust, the contribution must have been made at the time of the purchase of the property

Back 6

Curley v Parkes

Front 7

Rebutting of presumption of advancement (very weak):
Son held jointly-owned house only as a technicality due to father's age

Back 7

McGrath v Wallis (1995)

Front 8

A father has a presumption of advancement in relation to his legitimate child

Back 8

Bennet v Bennet (1879)

Front 9

A person in loco parentis to a child (infant or adult) has a presumption of advancement, this is where they have father's responsibility to provide

Back 9

Bennet v Bennet (1879)

Front 10

Presumption of advancement for husband to wife and fiance to fiancee

Back 10

Pettitt v Pettitt (1970)

Front 11

Presumption of advancement when moving bank account into joint name with wife was rebutted as being convenience

Back 11

Marshal v Crutwell (1875)

Front 12

Father in-law retained title deeds to house and there was evidence son-in-law was intended to repay

Back 12

Warren v Gurney (1944)

Front 13

Presumption of resulting trust rebutted:
Father supplied £110k for matrimonial home and moved in needing care; relationship ended; had claimed no interest nor secured a charge; an intended loan should be evidenced

Back 13

Loosemore v McDonnell (2007)

Front 14

Only acts and statements at time of transfer are admissible for or against parties rebutting presumptions of RT/advancement; subsequent declarations are only admissible against its maker

Back 14

Shephard v Cartwright (1955)

Front 15

(obiter) when transferring to a solicitor, you might expect a resulting trust

Back 15

Fowkes v Pascoe (1875)

Front 16

Not permitted on policy grounds to adduce evidence of own fraud to rebut presumption (in favour of wife) of advancement when dodging creditors

Back 16

Gascoigne v Gascoigne (1918)

Front 17

Case following Gascoigne v Gascoigne

Back 17

Tinker v Tinker (1970)

Front 18

Benefits cheat allowed to rely on presumption of resulting trust because they did not need to rely on evidence of their cheating (they made a contribution)

Back 18

Tinsley v Milligan (1993)

Front 19

Case following Tinsley v Milligan:
Man escaping divorce claim from wife allowed equitable interest due to contribution

Back 19

Lowson v Coombes (1999)

Front 20

A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such as to make it unconscionable for the owner of property to assert the beneficial interest

Back 20

Paragon Finance v DB Thakerer (1999)

Front 21

Common Intention Constructive Trust:
- Common intention
- Detrimental reliance

Need evidence of agreement (and then some DR) can be inferred from payment of mortgage instalments – little else will do.

Back 21

Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1991)

Front 22

Where trusts are not expressly stated:
- With joint legal tenants, onus to show equity does not follow the law
- Such a party should show common intentions
- Whole course of conduct can be considered (obiter)

Back 22

Stack v Dowden (2007)

Front 23

Common intention constructive trust:
Paying household expenses has been used to infer common intention when based on agreement to share costs where one does the mortgage
- If payments are big, it is detriment as well

Back 23

Le Foe v Le Foe and Woolwich (2001)

Front 24

Le Foe v Le Foe supported in Privy Council case
- Look at whole course of dealings is the trend

Back 24

Abbott v Abbott (2007)

Front 25

Share of constructive trust:
- Court will work out beneficial interests from what was said or agreed at the time
- If no evidence of agreement, work out what parties intended from the whole course of dealings (not what is “fair”

Back 25

Stack v Dowden (2007)

Front 26

- Legal owner of a house repeatedly told his partner that the house was hers
- estopped from denying her in interest in the house after her expenditure and improvements

Back 26

Pascoe v Turner (1979)

Front 27

Pascoe v Turner (1979)

Back 27

Inwards v Baker (1965)

Front 28

Man worked for 40 years for farmer for little pay and met expenses out of his own pocket
- repeatedly assured he would have whole estate left to him
- estopped from denying an Interest

Back 28

Gillett v Holt (2001)

Front 29

Another farm worker working for many years
- no direct assurances, just oblique remarks
- person reasonable understood statement or action as assurance on which he could rely

Back 29

Thorner v Major (2009)

Front 30

Detrimental reliance must go beyond natural affection

Back 30

Re Basham

Front 31

Satisfying equity:
1. The understanding
2. Flexible, minimum to meet the equity with regard to:
- Unconscionability
- Alteration
- Taxation
- D's benefit
- Proportionality

Back 31

Jennings v Rice