The court will order the minimum relief necessary to satisfy an estoppel. Related to this is the question of at what point is the joint tenancy in equity severed? Cathy and her brother, Sean, were the beneficiaries of a family trust, in equal shares. Moreover, possibly aware of clutter in the law post Stack cases have finding the intentions of the parties rather than those attributed to them by the court  EWCA Civ at . February 21, Date written: We only accept the best academic work that has been written by UK college and university students.
Lena must establish that there are sufficient grounds for the court to infer the presence of an agreement to share ownership of the land. When Is Fair Fair? If such an equitable entitlement under a constructive trust is inchoate, perhaps a very real question arises as to the extent to which such an equitable entitlement can and should bind third party purchasers? This is another area that the judges in Jones overlooked. Before addressing the specific issues, some preliminary observations:
The certainty of objects is an important element in determining the validity of a trust.
English law gives no special rights to cohabitees who are not married or in a civil partnership. Mandy placed the letter in an envelope, sealed the envelope, and put it safely away in her desk.
Equity and Trust Law Essays
Satck Ladyship suggested a further possibility that whatever the parties’ intentions at the outset, there may be reasons to conclude that these have now changed. Where a family home is acquired in the joint names of a cohabiting couple, the starting point is that equity follows the law and the parties are, therefore, joint tenants at law and in equity Jones v Kernott  1 AC May 19, Date written: Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link.
In the absence of an express declaration of trust in writing satisfying quesiton 53 1 b of the LPALena may be able to establish that she has:. Remember me on this computer. Did Jerome esway an irrevocable representation to Lena that she would have an interest in the house? Inferred common intention Lena must establish that there are sufficient grounds for the court to infer the presence of an agreement to share ownership of the land.
This action was essa by Jones who commenced an action for a declaration that she owned the entire beneficial interest in the property on the basis that their intentions regarding the beneficial ownership had changed since the separation which, in turn, effected a change in their respective beneficial interest in the property. Firstly, and more generally, their Lordships confirmed that in the domestic consumer context29, there is a presumption that the beneficial interests coincide with the legal estate, unless and otherwise the contrary is proved In a conveyance into joint names, equitable ownership would quetsion presumed to be equal even if the contribution to the acquisition was unequal.
Equity & Trust Law
Resulting Trust A resulting trust can arise when a person contributes to the purchase price of land, but the legal title is vested in the name of another.
It relates strongly to the beneficiary principle Pettitt v Pettitt and Gissing v Gissing. A look at the decisions in the lower courts in Jones esway the reasoning therein illustrates the gravity of the problem which had arisen post-Stack in this regard. Explore the effect of Hunter v Moss on certainty of subject matter. Therefore Lena needs to establish that she has a proprietary interest in the house using the conventional rules of property law.
It is also possible that she may have acquired an interest under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Cathy wrote and signed a letter dowdsn Marlene, which contained the following sentence: More controversial is the decision of the Court of Appeal which overturned the High Court decision by dowdden 2: Her contribution to the household expenses would seem to be sufficient as was the case in Grant v Edwardsfor example.
The Court was concerned with a cohabitating couple who had intended to purchase their home in joint names but was advised to register it under the sole name of Ms Hurst due to his poor credit rating. There are three requirements that must exist in order for there to be a valid trust. The majority found that since there was inferred conduct there was no need to discuss whether imputation had a role to play in merely quantifying the interest each party had, or whether it could also be used to find an equitable interest for a non-legal owner.
Imputation was not an option open to the courts. Generally, the same principles are applied but the court may be more inclined to draw different inferences as to their conduct based on their relationships. The case of Hunter v Moss relates to the requirement of certainty of subject matter within creation trusts.
Even if she had directly met the mortgage repayments this could not give rise to a resulting stakc Curley v Parkes  EWCA Civ While it was right for joint legal owners stzck presume joint equitable ownership, it was for the party asserting the equitable ownership to establish a constructive trust in his favour in the case where conveyance was only to a sole legal owner.
Common intention constructive trust A common intention constructive trust is based on: It is unfortunate, however, that such developments have had the consequence of adding layers of complexities to the law, essau formal legal principles of proprietary ownership were, from time to time, laxed, or rejected 1 See Knight v Knight 3 Beavfor the three certainties for an esay trust to come into existence: In Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset, Lord Bridge was of the opinion that the only act that would be sufficient would be a direct contribution to the purchase price, or the repayment of a mortgage.
However, there is no doubt that Jones could have gone further to provide clarity to the law.