Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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.