Equity: Resulting and Common Intention Constructive Trust Cases

Save time by using Keyboard Shortcuts
Quiz by samparkin92
Rate:
Last updated: December 12, 2023
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedNovember 30, 2023
Times taken0
Report this quizReport
4:00
0
 guessed
15 remaining
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Couple cohabits property in the sole name, other can only obtain a beneficial interest in property by making financial contribution to purchase of the property or mortgage.
(Outdated post Stack v Dowden)
No discussion of intention, resulting trust used.
(Outdated post Stack v Dowden)
Decorations to property does not entitle one to beneficial interest. Seen as a gift.
Wife paid considerable inheritance money to mortgage. Granted she had 50% beneficial title.
Objective intention to grant a beneficial interest in a family home can be inferred from a false excuse despite opposing subjective intent.
Had children together then man left.
Mother and son were tenants in common. Could not divide shares until sold. Entitled to live concurrently and neither could kick the other out. (Couldn't sell without property due to lack of receipt for proceeds).
Common Intention Constructive Trust approach used for unwed couples.
Baroness Hale's factors help determine distribution.
Rebutted presumption that joint tenancy in law also meant the same in equity.
Presumption of joint tenancy by CICT does not apply to commercial or investment properties.
If impossible to prove or infer parties intentions, court will impute what is fair according to the parties' conduct.
Where there is no evidence of express or inferred intention, court will look at conduct during whole course of dealing.
Established express and inferred intention
Bank sought possession. Entitled to 50% interest. Contributed to most bills and substantial decorations.
Excuses to not put name on title can amount to expression of intention to share interests in some circumstances.
Remortgaged house to pay off business debts, amounted to 25% of net equity in property (had 50% total)
Financial and family contributions amounted to 25% equity.
However, years of abuse endured did NOT entitle to equal shares.
Barnes v Philips [2015]
Bull v Bull [1955]
Burns v Burns [1984]
Eves v Eves [1975]
Graham-York v York [2015]
Grant v Edwards [1986]
Jones v Kernott [2012]
Laskar v Laskar [2008]
Le Foe v Le Foe [2001]
Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991]
Midland Bank v Cooke [1995]
Oxley v Hiscock [2004]
Pettit v Pettit [1969]
Springette v Defoe [1992]
Stack v Dowden [2007]
Comments
No comments yet