Property Law Second Term - FAMILY HOMES Flashcards Preview

Law First Year > Property Law Second Term - FAMILY HOMES > Flashcards

Flashcards in Property Law Second Term - FAMILY HOMES Deck (64):
1

What case made it clear inferred CI is an objective test

Jones v Kernott

2

Laskar v Laskar

Mother daughter investment

2

What are the two requirements for acquisition of a CT in sole legal ownership?

Agreement/arrangement/understanding and detrimental reliance

3

Grant v Edwards

'Conduct on which [someone] could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless [he/she] was to have an interest'

3

Who argued in Oxley that there is 'no difference in outcome' between CT and PE?

Chadwick LJ

4

Who said Inferred CI should not be used for acquisition?

Lord Wilson

5

Hale in Jones on 'equity follows'

No presumption, but will follow when there is an 'emotional and economic commitment to a joint enterprise'

5

Who called inferred CI a 'fiction' and in what case

Lord Kerr in Jones

5

What case gave two requirements for acquisition in sole legal ownership cases?

Lord Bridge, Lloyds Bank v Rosset

6

Who referred to a 'domestic' context for family home in stack?

Hale

6

What are the three possible ways to quantify joint legal ownership shares?

Actual, inferred or imputed

7

What did Hale in Stack suggest (obiter) about express/inferred/implied?

Applies to quantification AND acquisition

8

Who supported a constructive trust in Stack v Dowden

Hale and Walker

9

Goodman v Gallant

'Conclusive' declaration of an express trust

9

Why was Coombes v Smith not CT?

D already owned the house

10

what did Bridge say about inferring agreement?

Only from direct contribution to purchase price as 'doubtful whether anything less will do'

11

What is an ambulatory trust?

When common intention changes over time

11

What is the problem with an ambulatory trust?

You need severance to change JT to TC, so new method?

12

Oxley v Hiscock

CT and PE

14

Jones v Kernott facts

90% to wife

14

What case suggested Bridge was wrong on inferring agreement for CT?

Aspden v Elvy

15

Who referred to 'matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial' context for family home in Stack?

Walker

17

Stack v Dowden facts

65% given to the wife - they had separate finances, suggesting they wished to keep their individual shares separate

19

When is Goodman v Gallant set aside?

Unconscionable or proprietary estoppel

20

What is suggested to be a block on imputation for acquisition in sole legal ownership?

The fact that V needs to have relied on the assurance - can't rely on something made up

20

Coombes v Smith

Affair, children

21

Chadwick LJ in Oxley

'No difference in outcome' between CT and PE

22

How did Rosset and Stack argue purchase price could play a dual role?

For implied common intention it could prove intention and detriment

23

Greasley v Cooke

Evidence of detriment presumed reliance

25

Why did the government reject the TR1 form being compulsory?

Against their anti-regulatory agenda

26

What do s.1(6) and s.36(2) LPA make clear?

Only JT at law

27

What is the issue with Hale obiter in Stack?

Imputed intention for acquisition would allow CT to arise without any agreement at all

28

Why might the TR1 Form not be used?

Need more than one transferee, DIY conveyancing, ignoring possibility of breakdown or undue influence

28

Jones v Kernott on resulting trust

No presumption of an RT from unequal shares if romantic relationship

29

'Conduct on which [someone] could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless [he/she] was to have an interest'

Grant v Edwards

31

Eves v Eves

'This will always be your home'

32

How does one determine inferred common intention?

'In light of the whole course of conduct' (Hale in Stack)

34

Laskar and Stack

Stack has no application because for investment

36

Eves v Eves ratio

Actual common intention even if not genuine

37

What are the formalities for an express trust?

S.53(1) LPA

39

Who said inferred CI is 'in light of the whole course of conduct'?

Hale in Stack

40

What if Stack had applied in Laskar?

Would have rebutted equity follows the law

41

Why are s.1(6) and s.36(2) LPA problematic for joint legal ownership?

They show you haven't chosen interests at law, so why should equity follow the law?

42

Who referred to 'sexual, platonic, familial' etc context for family home in Stack

Neuberger

44

Who supported a resulting trust in Stack?

Neuberger

45

How is quantification for sole legal ownership CT worked out?

Same as for joint - Stack v Dowden

47

Hale in Stack on 'equity follows the law'

Rebutting is not 'a task to be lightly embarked upon'

48

Aspden v Elvy

Habitable work

49

What two types of agreement can be found for acquisition in sole legal ownership?

Express or inferred

50

What is inferred CI?

What reasonable people would have done

51

What sections of the LPA make it clear only JT at law?

S.1(6) and s.36(2) LPA

52

Why is there no writing needed for a CT or RT?

S.53(2) LPA excludes it

53

How did Rosset distinguish CT from PE?

CT needs discussions before purchase

54

Lord Bridge in Oxley

Overlap between CT and PE

55

Who suggested the TR1 Form should be compulsory?

Law Commission

56

When is there a more expansive notion of family home than in CT?

PE

57

Stack v Dowden on resulting trust

Not for family home as the 'law has indeed moved on' from Lloyds Bank v Rosset

58

why did Coombes v Smith fail?

No detriment

59

What case suggested an ambulatory trust may be possible?

Jones v Kernott

60

What two cases conflict on whether mortgage repayments can be used for an RT?

Laskar v Laskar, Curley v Parkes

61

Curley v Parkes

Mortgage repayments not for RT

62

Mortgage repayments NOT for RT

Curley v Parkes

63

Abbot v Abbot

RT not for quantification or acquisition in a family home case as only focuses on payment of money

64

Why was there no detriment in Coombes v Smith?

She would have moved in anyway