Implied trusts

Question 1

When does a resulting trust arise?

Answer 1

T transfers property but equity recognises that they should retain an interest in that property

Question 2

Automatic resulting trust

Answer 2

Valid transfer but no DOT or B does not satisfy contingency

Question 3

Presumed Resulting trust

Answer 3

T makes a gift (presumed held on trust for their benefit - no gift) unless:
- presumption of advancement (father, husband)
- Land (presumed it was a gift); or
- Evidence at time of transfer it was a gift

NOTE: evidence after time of transfer - can only use it if disadvantageous to person doing the act in the evidence

Question 4

Resulting trust over land

Answer 4

If contributed to purchase price, presumed legal owner holds property for benefit of both. Own property in proportion to contributions

Question 5

What is a constructive trust

Answer 5

Arises where it would be unconcionable for legal owner to assert beneficial ownerhip

Question 7

Common intention constructive trust when property is held in 2 names

Answer 7

Court presumes that property is held as JTs. Can rebut presumption and argue hold in unequal shares if:

1. Common intention that ownership unequal (HIGH BAR - kept finances separate for 20 years)
2. Relied on common intention to detriment (e.g. contributed more to deposit / mortgage)

Court will then determine size of share having regard to whole course of dealing

Question 8

Common intention constructive trust when legal title is in one name

Answer 8

Starting point is that do not have an interest. However, can argue do have an interest if can show:

1. Common intention to share ownership
2. C detrimentally relied on common intention (financial detriment only)

Common intention can be demonstrtaed eitehr by:
Words at time of purchase that C would share ownership or will be inferred if C has contributed financially to the purchase price (e.g. mortgage / deposit / fees / NOT Improvements or looking after family)

Question 9

What is proprietary estoppel

Answer 9

Mechanism by which the court can prevent legal owner of property from dealing with land in the way they want because of promises they previously made

Question 10

Elements to prove for promissory estoppel

Answer 10

1. Assurance B woudl have an interest in the land (promise or sits back and does nothing)
2. B relied on assurance (this is presumed provided B suffered a detriment. D would need to show assurance was not reason why B acted detrimentally (e.g. woudl have done it anyway)
3. B acted detrimentally in reliance (financial and non-financial acts)
4. Unconcionable for court to let D go back on promise (usually satisfied. Issue would be if received benefits).