CT

Question 1

Kasperbauer v Griffith

Answer 1

1) INTENTION to create a trust (and other 3 certainties)
2) COMMUNICATION to B (can be through agent - Moss v Cooper)
3) ACCEPTANCE by B

Question 2

Walgrave v Tebbs

Answer 2

FST communication - anytime before death is fine

(if after, no trust, B takes absolutely because will takes place as soon as A dies, and at that point B gets absolute ownership - B needs to be obligated BEFORE he gets the property)

Question 3

What has to be communicated?

Answer 3

Walgrave v Tebbs - intention for ST
Re Boyes - terms of the trust
Re Colin Cooper - property subject to ST

Question 4

Re Keen (method of communication)

Answer 4

Sealed envelope is fine - sufficient communication

as long as B knows there is a trust and has means of knowing how to discover the precise terms, that is satisfactory

Question 5

FST - Communication only to some trustees

Answer 5

Only person who receives communication is bound by a valid ST

EXCEPTION: Re Stead - if A leaves prop for B1,2,3 as JOINT TENANTS and communication is made to B1 then all is bound

Question 6

Moss v Cooper

Answer 6

acceptance can be silence or words because of reliance

- if B doesn’t say no, then that is acceptance

Question 7

Strickland v Alridge

Answer 7

B’s acceptance refrained A making will (A died intestate so it would go to B his next of kin)

• if B refused, A would have made a will

Question 8

Re Boyes (case of no communication of terms)

Answer 8

if B is ignorant of TRUST = B takes absolutely

if B is ignorant of TERMS = RT back to A (“failing trust”)

Question 9

Blackwell v Blackwell, Re Bateman’s WT

Answer 9

In HST, communication must be made BEFORE execution of will

- because cannot contradict wording of the will

Question 10

Re Garden

Answer 10

if communication is not made to all trustees, in HST, only trustee that is told is bound (will takes precedent)

Question 11

Re Keen (HST)

Answer 11

TERMS cannot conflict the will

• sealed envelope case failed actually
• In will, it said B was notified but B wasn’t notified till after death

Question 12

Re Maddock

Answer 12

FST: If B dies before A = trust fails

- if will executed first, then prop to B

Question 13

Conley v Clock Makers

Answer 13

HST: if B dies before A = trust does not fail

- trusts don’t fail for want of a trustee

Question 14

If C dies before A (FST)

Answer 14

logic says auto RT “failing trust”

- because trust takes effect when A dies, goes to B, but B has no one to hold for, so goes to A’s estate

Question 15

If C dies before A (HST)

Answer 15

Re Garden II

• says trust goes to C’s estate
• everyone thinks this is wrong
• because it presumes trust was valid when C was alive when trust isn’t valid until A dies

Question 16

Re Dale

Answer 16

A –> C

B –> C

Question 17

Re Goodchild

Answer 17

Identical and simultaneous wills are not enough, needs to be INTENTION that B will not revoke will after A dies

Question 18

Re Walters

Answer 18

need CLEAR and SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE of a “contract” between two testators

• but doesn’t have to be a contract at common law
• they just mean FIRM AGREEMENT
• intended to be legally binding
• agree specific dispositions

Question 19

Re Hagger

Answer 19

What does B owe C in MW?

• B cannot sell capital property/assets
• like life interest, and then C gets remainder

BUT THIS IS NOT NORMAL
- usually B just gets “whatever is left”

Question 20

Thomas & Agnes Carvel Foundation v Carvel

Answer 20

CT arises where A dies - how can B have an obligation when A dies when B agrees to leave what B has when B himself dies to C?

Question 21

Birmingham v Renfrew

Answer 21

CT arises at A’s death (confirmed in Re Walters) but it is FLOATING and bites only after B’s lifetime
(crystallises at B’s death)

Question 22

Lewis v Cotten, Re Hays,

Answer 22

Revocation after death of either party = fine

- if sufficient notice before death, MW doesn’t apply even if non-revoking party rejects revocation

Question 23

Re Walters

Answer 23

immediate trust for C if there is a MW agreement after A’s death (just doesn’t Bite yet)

Question 24

If C dies before B (but after A)

Answer 24

doesn’t matter - once B dies, it goes to C’s estate because C had an interest at the time of her death

Question 25

Rochefoucauld v Boustead

Answer 25

A and B agree something - B acquires land on the basis it will be a trust (oral trust) but no formalities complied with - B cannot use the statute of frauds as an instrument of fraud

Question 26

Bannister v Bannister

Answer 26

Rochefoucauld applies - elderly lady transfers to B on informal understanding that A will live rent free till she dies At start = full ownership at end = beneficial ownership

Question 27

Hodgson v Marks

Answer 27

Rochefoucauld applies - A conveyed to B on oral agreement of trust At start = full ownership at end = beneficial ownership

Question 28

Re Duke of Malborough

Answer 28

Rochefoucauld applies - A transferred to B because she wanted B to raise mortgage in A's name - both agreed to transfer back to her but B died first At start = full ownership at end = beneficial ownership

Question 29

Rochefoucauld (A got more at end than at outset)

Answer 29

had equity of redemption at start | - beneficiary of trust of entire estate = WAY MORE

Question 30

Lincoln v Wright

Answer 30

Same as rouchefoucould - got entire beneficiary interest at end

Question 31

Smith v Matthews, Wratten v Hunter

Answer 31

if A self-declares trust orally, Rochefoucauld does not apply - because no fraud in these cases - if A decides not to enforce the trust, doesn't matter - C may be able to use PE anyway (but this isn't Rochefoucauld)

Question 32

Birch v Blagrave

Answer 32

A transfers to B to avoid being sheriff (B didn't know) - B holds on trust for A because RT not because Rochefoucauld - said its A's intention not to part with benefice interest ROCHEFOUCOULD DOESN'T APPLY WHRE B DOESN'T PROMISE TO HOLD ONT RUST

Question 33

Childers v Childers

Answer 33

B didn't know, B never promised | - B had to hold not rust for A because of a RT (A didn't intend B to have interest)

Question 34

THREE PARTY CASES and Rochefoucould

Answer 34

Felton - no Youdon - YES De Bryne - court said yes 3 party cases If CT is about fairness then surely yes?

Question 35

Pallant v Morgan

Answer 35

If A and B make an agreement then B holds plot for A and B because if B retained all = "tantamount to sanctioning fraud" - like specifically enforceable contract for sale, it can give rise to a trust

Question 36

Holiday Inns America v Broadhead

Answer 36

if A and B agree A will acquire specific property for joint benefit of A and B on terms yet to be agreed, B thereby induced to refrain from attempting to acquire property equity because of A's reliance NOT ABOUT DETRIMENT it's about A'S RELIANCE or B's ADVANTAGE

Question 37

Banner Homes Group v Luff Developments

Answer 37

Chadwick J - explained Pallant 1) agreement must precede acquisition 2) agreement need not be contractually enforceable 3) agreement must contemplate that A gets some interest if B succeeds 4) A's acts of reliance must cause A to suffer detriment or cause B to acquire an advantage 5) A's reliance must make it INEQUITABLE for B to ignore agreement and keep property for himself

Question 38

If agreement on subject matter

Answer 38

then subject matter reflects agreement (e.g. Banner Homes, Time Products v Combined Eng Stores)

Question 39

if no agreement on subject matter

Answer 39

then courts say equal shares, silence = 50/50 (Holiday Inns v Broadhead)