StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust - Case Study Example

Cite this document
Summary
The study "Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust" focuses on the critical analysis of the major issues on resulting and constructive trust in Equity & Trust. Lynn Jones and Mike Smith are an unmarried couple. They met in 1990 and decided to set up a home together…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER93.7% of users find it useful
Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust"

RESULTING AND CONSTUCTIVE TRUST IN EQUITY & TRUST Lynn Jones v Mike Smith You act for Lynn Jones, who wishes to be advised as to the merits of her pending appeal to the House of Lords. Facts: Lynn Jones and Mike Smith are an unmarried couple. They met in 1990 and decided to set up home together. In the same year, Mike purchased a house in his sole name, the purchase money coming from his divorce settlement and by way of a mortgage. At Mike's invitation, Lynn Moved into the house shortly after completion of the purchase. In 1991, Lynn gave birth to their first child, changed her surname to Mike's and held herself out to their friends and family as his wife. A second child was born in1995. Over the years, the mortgage payments were always paid out of Mike's salary, whilst Lynn paid all the food bills and out goings on the house (I.e., council tax, water rates, gas, electricity and telephone charges) out if her own income as part-time secretary. She also, throughout the relationship, looked after the children and performed all the usual domestic duties around the home. In Sept 2003, Lynn formed a liaison with another man and moved out of the house. She brought an action against Mike claiming that she was entitled to a half-share in the house by reason of her contributions to the house hold expenses during the period the parties lived together. According to the evidence at the trial in the High Court, both Lynn and Mike had assumed that the house was jointly owned although the matter was never actually discussed between them. It is also not in dispute that, if it had not been for the fact that Lynn was working part-time, Mike would not have been able to meet the mortgage payments out of his own salary. In March 2004, the High Court held that Lynn was not entitled to a beneficial half-share in the house for the following reason. 1) Applying Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset (1994) 1 A.C. 107, (HL), in the absence of any finding of an agreement, arrangement or understanding between the parties to share beneficially, Lynn's indirect contributions to household expenses were insufficient to found a beneficial interest in the house. In particular, the court refused to follow the decision of Mr. Nicholas Mostyn Q.C. (sitting as a deputy High judge) in Le v Le Foe (2002) 2 F.L.R. 970on the ground that it was inconsistent with Lord Bridge's speech in Rosset; 2) Distinguishing Midlands Bank Plc v Cooke (1995) 4 All E.R. 562 (C.A.), it was not open to the court to assess Glady's beneficial share in the house by undertaking a survey of the whole course of dealings between the parties relevant to their ownership and occupation of the property. The principle enunciated in Cooke applied only to the establishment of an equitable interest through direct contributions. In December 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed Lynn's appeal affirming both grounds given by the High Court. Task: Lynn now wishes to appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal's decision and seeks your written opinion on the merits of her claim. You should support your advice by reference to decided cases. Answer: The current state of caselaw on implied trust and beneficial or equitable interest in property due to indirect contributions to family home is not favourable to the appeal being considered by Lynn Jones. English courts are reluctant to adopt the remedial constructive trust principles of Canadian courts. It seems to be that judicial reasoning on implied trust rely on contributions to the purchase price and provable agreement, arrangement or understanding between the parties to share the property beneficially prevent the application of principles of justice and conscience in the present case. The facts of the problem show that the court had already struck down Lynn Jones arguments on the application of resulting trust principles because of the lack of contribution to the purchase price or proof of agreement, arrangement or understanding to share equitable interest. Not only the Rosset and Cooke cases but also the basic direction of English court decisions are inflexible enough to let go of the very premises to the existing reasons on the matter. This is basically due to the lack of cohabitation law in the case of non-married couples, which the present case falls despite the use of Mike Smiths family name and held herself out as wife to their friends. In case of property disputes in these cases, reliance must be made upon property and trust laws to obtain a fair and equitable division of the community property. There exists a minority undertow that is not ready to take responsibility for the uncertainty of excess court discretion and lack of precision that approval of Lyn Jones' case would bring to the existing English common law. The uncertainty of Lynn Jones' appeal is due to the reluctance of the English courts to adopt less rigid tests for resolving family property disputes allowing imposition of constructive trusts "whenever justice and good conscience require it."1 English tests laid down by the Rosset case2 impose a rather in appropriate burden upon appellant to establish 'an agreement, arrangement or understanding' between Lynn Jones and Mike Smith in order for the former to be able to claim a beneficial interest in the house subject of the case. If only Lynn Jones could establish that she contributed even a small fraction of the purchase price that would allow the courts to fully examine all the circumstances of the relationship and of all contributions whether financial or non-financial pursuant to the Cooke case3. If Lynn Jones would take the cudgels for all similar circumstances, the present case could be the last straw that could break the court's reluctance. Lynn Jones should assert more on the true value of domestic duties which should be converted by the court into a proportionate share in the house bought during the period of the relationship between the parties. It may be admitted that there is difficulty in predetermining the respective interests of the parties, even more difficult than in the Cooke case, but it should not deter the court from applying justice and good conscience and should not discriminate against the party who made substantial but exclusively indirect contributions. This must be so because the requirement of establishing detriment imposes the unconsionable additional artificial burden upon the claimant-appellant. Irish courts are more favourable to the present appeal because they recognize the reality that persons in a loving relationship will rarely give much thought to their respective legal or beneficial interests in their property. Most parties to a relationship will alter their position in many ways throughout the relationship. "Few spouses or partners will think of making any specific agreement about the effect which any contribution which they might make should have."4 The requirement of common intention is more appropriately applicable to commercial or contractual issues rather than in family property relationships such as the present case and the courts should be exhorted to make the necessary distinction. Lawson has asserted "the test of common intention and detrimental reliance is an inappropriate means of resolving such disputes as most relationships are based on trust and collaboration and not on organized thinking."5 It must be emphasized that in current caselaw, the absence of express common intention, the indirect contributions of Lynn Jones will not realise a beneficial interest in her favour because from their fact cannot be inferred common intention. "Courts cannot devise agreements which the parties never made. The Court cannot ascribe intentions which the parties never had."6 "(I)f an indirect contribution is to result in a wife acquiring a beneficial interest, it must be that subject of a proper agreement between the spouses."7 The same line of non-valuation of domestic contribution into equitable or beneficial interest in the family home is also seen in Burns v Burns8. These opinions are, however, in line with the tradition of resulting trusts and the appeal of Lynn Jones should focus on constructive trust9 principles. In fact, Lynn Jones is in a better position than the foregoing parties or cases because there is actual significant indirect financial contribution which she gave to the family home in the form of food bills, council tax, water rates, gas, electricity and telephone charges in addition to her domestic duties. The court must be exhorted to recognize that Mike Smith is enriched by the said contributions of Lynn Jones, that the artificiality of the insistence on proof of common intention, whether by express or implied agreements, in not in keeping with equity, justice and good conscience and that she is nearly in the same position as the case of Midland Bank v Cooke. The comments of Reid, L. in Gissing v Gissing10 deserves attention: A candid and honest wife would agree the [ownership of the home] was never discussed, that her husband never indicated any intention to give her a share, and that she never thought about it. On such evidence no judge could possibly infer that on the balance of probabilities there was an agreement. On the other hand, a more sophisticated wife who had been told what the law was would probably be able to produce some vague evidence which would enable a sympathetic judge to do justice by finding in her favour. That would be a very creditable state in which to leave the law. The present trend of judicial reasoning would tend to lead to materialism and created irresponsibility on the part of the husband who would focus his efforts on obtaining title to property rather than contribute to domestic duties and care of the children. Because a constructive trust has nothing to do with intention, presumed or otherwise, but results in a court imposing a trust upon a certain situation of fact, for the English courts to insist on determining intention or agreement where there is not would be forcing the issue and lead instead to injustice. The lack of cohbitation laws should give way to the adoption of principles based on remedial constructive trust and unjust enrichment in the present case. Due reference must be made to Canadian court decisions particularly to Pettkus v Becker11 and Peter v Beblow12 where court-imposed trusts are designed to cure injustices based on unjust enrichment which cases must be made to apply to the present case because there is direct and sufficient connection to the domestic duties and indirect financial contributions of Lynn Jones to the family home. Constructive trust may be imposed by the court in order to achieve an equitable outcome and is not dependent on the intention of the parties and in fact can actually be contrary to their real intention. Denning, L. has raised the opinion that "[a] constructive trust could be imposed by a court whenever and for any reasons, such as a remedy, when it seemed to be required by equity, justice and good conscience, irrespective of any other legal rules."13 The case of Rawluk14 deserves attention. In that case the court gave credit to the wife's substantial indirect contribution despite all the property being in the husbands name and declared that wife's interest and right arise from the beginning, from the moment that a person could have claimed relief and therefore as wife was making contributions, she was also acquiring an interest in the property and increase in property value constituted an increase in her interest in the property. In the present case, significant attention and weight must be given to the detrimental reliance of Lyn Jones on the actual maintenance and success of the family home which has direct and sufficient upon the subject property. It is well-established even in the restrictive English sense, that detrimental reliance on expectations to confer benefits on others or to receive benefits from others, which should cover the present case should be sufficient to create constructive trust similar to promissory estoppel. This should help to inject flexibility in an otherwise English viewpoint. Indeed, constructive trusts, which arise by operation of law in response to different events, should be given effect as to result to perfecting intentions, fulfilling expectations, or effecting restitutions of assets wrongfully acquired or unjustly enriching of the other party. Bibliography Delany, Equity and the Law of Trusts in Ireland (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 1996) Lawson, The Things We Do For Love: Detrimental Reliance in the Family Home [1996] 16 Legal Studies 218. Millet, L, ___________ [1998] 114 LQR 399 Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317. Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886. Hussey v Palmer [1972] All ER 768 CA WLR 1286 Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1994] 1 AC 107 HL McFarlane v McFarlane [1972] NI 59. Midland Bank v Cooke [1995] 4 All ER 562 N.A. v T.D. [1985] ILRM 153. Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834. Peter v Beblow [1993] SCR Rawluk v Rawluk [1990] SCR 70 SCC Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust Case Study”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1524634-resulting-and-constructive-trust-in-equity-trust
(Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust Case Study)
https://studentshare.org/law/1524634-resulting-and-constructive-trust-in-equity-trust.
“Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust Case Study”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1524634-resulting-and-constructive-trust-in-equity-trust.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Resulting and Constructive Trust in Equity & Trust

Law of express trust

Various kinds of trusts are resulting trust, Statutory or constructive trust and express trust. Express Trust: Express Trust is be made by settlor by transferring property to a trust for a valid purpose.... trust is an essential element of estate planning.... trust is a right created in the property by one person for the benefit of another.... hellip; The trustee has to administer the property and is obliged to distribute it to the beneficiary in terms of the trust....
4 Pages (1000 words) Case Study

The Trust Intention and Equity

This paper under the title "The trust Intention and Equity" focuses on the fact that no doubt equity is considered an addition to the common law through two sets of rules, which though distinct, must not be looked upon as two co-ordinate and independent systems.... nbsp;… The rules of equity are only a sort of supplement or appendix to the Common Law; they assume its existence but they add something further.... The rules of equity, though they did not contradict the rules of Common Law, in effect and in practice produced a result opposed to that which would have been produced if the Common Law rules remained alone....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

Essential Components of a Valid Trust

One of equity's greatest inventions has been the ‘trust'.... The trust is a form of ownership that developed in England through the courts of Chancery.... trust can be defined as the written instruments that give title to or an interest in real estate.... trust law applies whenever one person has placed trust and confidence in another person to manage his or her affairs.... The full force of the law of equity governs such relationships and the trust now provides a mechanism for a number of situations, family relationships, charities, pension funds, to name but a few....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

Constructive Trust & Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown

Conversely, the Court of Appeal in Agip Africa v Jackson 7 asserted that equity will however allow tracing through mixed bank accounts through the imposition of fiduciary duty and constructive trust, which lends itself to support the assertion that constructive trusts act as the conscience of equity.... This paper "constructive trust & Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown" discusses the statement in the context of constructive trust applicability inequitable tracing and fiduciary duties and the financial consequences of relationship breakdown....
9 Pages (2250 words) Case Study

The Trust and Its Principle Application

nbsp; In Broadman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 the court imposed a constructive trust in a situation where an attorney in the course of representing a trust happened to come across some confidential information which he used for the purpose of acquiring company shares that were partly owned by the trustees.... 0 On occasions when a trustee abuses the confidence reposed in him by realizing an unauthorized profit derived from the trust property or becomes unjustly enriched at another's expense, the court may impose a constructive trust on the party who acted with impropriety....
12 Pages (3000 words) Literature review

Controversies Surrounding Constructive Trusts

hellip; The constructive trust can be established if it is found that any person has obtained the property, after committing the murder of the genuine property owner.... As a particular constructive trust would relate only to the specific property, the legal professionals also call it as a “proprietary” remedial method of solving the particular disputes….... However, there is no explicit intention on the part of the settlor to establish a constructive trust....
8 Pages (2000 words) Case Study

Trust Law Is Still Evolving Especially Where Constructive Trusts Are Concerned

The paper "trust Law Is Still Evolving Especially Where Constructive Trusts Are Concerned" states that equity specifically addresses the need to ensure that justice is done to the parties and that the intentions of donors are taken into account in determining interests on gifts and dispositions of property.... The doctrine of privity under the common law does not make adequate provision for representing the interests of third parties and the emergence of the principle of the trust is a development in specific response to this handicap in common law....
8 Pages (2000 words) Case Study

The Main Purposes of Formality Requirements

First is the evidence of the creation of the trust in writing.... An example of the conscious creation of a trust can be illustrated as follows.... As he is too young to keep all the money and for reasons of her old age, she creates a trust for him by transferring the said £ 100,000 to a trustee who may be her close friend, relative or her bank giving instructions as to how to deal with the money entrusted such as investing it for earning interest and paying the capital of £ 100,000 along with the accumulated interest on her grandson's eighteenth birthday and also to meet her grandson's education expenses and an annual allowance of specified sum on his reaching his teens, in the meanwhile....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us