6. Implied Trusts of the Home Flashcards
(22 cards)
Pettit v Pettit
If parties have expressly declared what their interests are, that will be deemed conclusive
Gissing v Gissing
Declaration of beneficial interests needs to be evidenced in writing to comply with LPA 1925, s 53(1)(b)
Where property is conveyed to one party only, he will be presumed to be the owner of the whole beneficial interest as well
Stack v Dowden
In absence of express oral agreement as to parties’ shares, courts must examine parties’ common intention in light of whole course of conduct
• (1) Financial contributions
• (2) Discussions – between parties, with solicitors
• (3) Nature of relationships
• (4) Outgoings – bills, council tax, food
• (5) Personalities – e.g. dominant imposing views on other?
• (6) Any children – responsibility to provide home?
• (7) Finances – all pooled into single account or kept separate?
Jones v Kernott
o (1) Presumption is parties are joint tenants in law and equity
o (2) Presumption can be displaced by showing parties had different common intention (a) at time they acquired home or (b) subsequently
o (3) Common intention is to be deduced objectively from conduct
o (4) Where presumption is rebutted, but it is not possible to ascertain intention as to exact apportionment of shares, this will be determined by the court, having regard to whole course of dealing between them
o (5) Each case will depend on facts – financial contributions important, but not decisive
Fowler v Barron
Man who had paid deposit, all mortgage payments and direct outgoings unable to rebut presumption of joint beneficial ownership
Adekunle v Ritchie
House bought in joint names of mother and son (mother unemployed) - presumption rebutted: purpose clearly to provide home for mother
Laskar v Laskar
Where property is bought as investment rather than joint home, Stack v Dowden doesn’t apply
Bull v Bull
‘Purchase money’ resulting trust
Rosset
At time of acquisition or (exceptionally) at later date, there must be an agreement, arrangement or understanding
Inference is by direct contributions to purchase price alone
Clough v Killey
‘Everything’s 50:50’ – sufficient
Quantification question - court follows agreement (even though estimated woman only actually contributed 25%)
Hammond v Mitchell
‘Half yours’ – sufficient
Grant v Edwards
Conduct which is otherwise inexplicable, i.e. it cannot be explained other than by reference to agreement as to shared beneficial interest
‘It will prejudice your divorce’ – sufficient (excuse case)
Eves v Eves
Detrimental reliance found when woman carries out substantial repair and maintenance works on property
‘You’re too young’ – sufficient (excuse case)
Burns v Burns
Looking after children does not count as detrimental reliance
Parris v Williams
Detrimental reliance need not have been agreed/anticipated by parties
Holman v Howes
Where there is agreement as to acquisition question but not as to quantification, courts fall back on criteria from Stack v Dowden
Graham-York v York (recent case)
Courts must look at whole course of conduct in relation to property
James v Thomas
Non-financial factors only count in exceptional circumstances
Thomson v Humfrey
Giving up job to help party with legal ownership on basis that he would look after her also does not give rise to inferred intention
Le Foe v Le Foe
Paying household bills may be enough if frees up party with legal ownership to make mortgage repayments
Thomas v Fuller Brown
Carrying out renovations on property not enough
Abbott v Abbott
‘Holistic approach’ – look at whole course of dealing to infer what the interest should be (Stack v Dowden criteria)
Where interest cannot be inferred, it may be imputed by the courts – i.e. they will simply declare what seems a fair allocation
