#19937 - Pq Map Co Ownership Ii - Land Law

Implied Co-ownership

B is trying to assert a beneficial interest in the property under an implied trust. If imposed, in equity, the property will be co-owned by A and B under a trust of land, which A will hold on trust for themselves and B. B may also want some proceeds from sale

Types of trusts

1. Express

• Created in direct response to express intentions and must satisfy formality requirements.

• LPA 1925, s53(1): In writing + signed "manifested and proved by some writing"

• s53(1)(b) LPA 1925: merely need “written evidence” of declaration/intention. But it must amount to a declaration of the equitable interests, not another purpose (Stack)

• If the beneficial interests are expressly declared in writing (or evidenced in writing), this is conclusive as to the beneficial ownership for the parties to that express declaration (Taylor v. Taylor (2017)), unless the written document is fraudulent (S v. J (2016)).

• Oral declarations of co-ownership will not establish an express trust Kaki v. Kaki (2015).

• Written declarations also used to establish size of shares (Richards v Woods) (2014)

2. Resulting

When courts impose resulting trusts: Resulting trusts arise through direct financial contributions (usually as an investment) (L. Hope, Stack). Rarely imposed.

Step 1: Establishing a beneficial entitlement

• Lloyd’s Bank v Rosset [1991]: Either by an expressed common intention to share, or by direct contribution.

1. Contributions towards the purchase price (including contributions to mortgage payments)

Instances where direct contributions were satisfied

• Halifax B Soc v Brown (1995)

• Principle: Direct Financial contribution is satisfied if all that is provided is the deposit

• Laskar v Laskar 2008

• Principle: Payments towards the mortgage over a period of time can be contributions towards the purchase price

• Wodzicki: financial contributions to its purchase & maintenance over an extended period of time helped establish RT

Instances where direct contributions weren’t satisfied

• Bradbury v Hoolin (1998): gift, loan

  • Principle: A resulting trust will not arise where the money was given to the legal owner by way of gift or loan.

• Bank of India v. Mody (1998)

  • Principle: The contribution must be made to the acquisition of the property not merely to its repair

• National Bank v. Wadhwani (1998)

  • Principle: An interest will not arise out of direct contribution, if there was no intention to acquire an interest.

2. Having entitlement that lowers cost of land

• Oxley v Hiscock [2005]

  • Principle: Discount entitlements can be considered as direct () contributions

  • Facts: A acquired property with intention to live with B, who had a discount entitlement.

3. Contributing to permanent feature that increases land price (possibly).

Must be permanent (e.g., central heating) vs TV can be taken away, must be immovable. More often, these contributions are treated as indirect contributions (for quantification).

• Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC, Behrens J; Direct contribution to conversion establishes interest

  • Facts: A transferred the ownership of a barn with planning permission for conversion to a dwelling-house to E, + 70k for conversion. A intended barn title as gift, but money was for conversion works (direct cont). A wanted an interest in the barn & E knew this. A entitled to 25% (100k).

  • Proprietary estoppel was there & would have led to the same outcome.

  • ‘I have to impute an intention by reference to what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between the parties.’ ([123]).

• Hosking v Michaelides [2004]:Simply spending money on the land will not necessarily establish a beneficial entitlement.

  • C’s contribution (20k) towards swimming pool on the land didn’t give her a beneficial interest, as pool hadn’t increased the value of the land. Some people like it, others don’t.

Step 2: Proportionality

• Principle of Proportionality Applies. Behrens, Aspden: “fair return on investment” (Barn case). Consider indirect contributions. B gets back what she put in.

3. Constructive (Common intention to share/DC + detrimental reliance = constructive trust)

Step 1: Establishing the Beneficial Interest: common intention to share.

Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rossett: common intention (requirement 1) must be found to establish a beneficial entitlement. This can be through one of three ways:

1. Express common intention to share (Making an express statement that amounts to common intentions)

• A says to B: ‘although title to the house is in my name alone, I consider the house to be as much yours as mine.’ ‘This will always be your home’, or ‘I would never sell without your agreement’, imply a promise as to ownership? ‘Of course this house is (y)ours’.

• Lord Bridge, Rosset: doesn’t matter if parties don’t remember the conversation well.

2. Implied Common Intention to share (A makes an implied statement that amounts to common intention.)

• Principle: A court might identify common intention from A saying something which doesn’t appear to indicate his willingness to share.

Eves v Eves [1975] Lie + Detriment

• A claimed B couldn’t hold title with him becaue she wasn’t 21 (lie). They split up. A said B had no beneficial entitlement. B awarded 25%

• CA treated A’s lie as evidence of a common intention: were she 21, they’d be JTs. Work which B had put into renovating the property was treated as detriment even though it did not amount to much. Seems to suggest it is a de minimums requirement.

Grant v Edwards [1986] Lying

• B wanted to be JT with A, but A told B it was inadvisable for her to have her name on the legal title because it could prejudice her divorce proceedings (lie).

• A’s statement was evidence of a common intention to share. CA implied that A knew B wanted to share. The lie is simply to avoid the reality of the nature of the relationship.

BUT: Curran v Collins (2015) Lie, didn’t quality as CI

• A (held sole title before meeting B) made it clear to B that he wouldn’t add her name to the title because this would require them both to take out costly life insurance policies (a lie).

• CA held that this statement didn’t indicate an express common intention to share.

• Grant and Eves were distinguished because: Lewison LJ:

  • In Curran, the house wasn’t bought as a dwelling for A&B. Lie was told after buyng

  • In Eves, A said I would share, but… Here, A said I won’t share, full stop. A must indicate that there is a circumstance where he would share (even if not honest).

3. Inferred intention through the conduct of the parties (direct contributions (Rosset)

• Establishing common intention to share via inferred intention. There must be a direct contribution to establish beneficial entitlement. Direct contributions alone can’t do this. Use DC notes from RTs

Lloyd’s Bank v Rosset [1991]

• Facts: Husband and wife arranged to purchase farmhouse, legal title was conveyed to the A alone. The renovation was a joint venture, with the wife supervising the work. The property was later mortgaged, the repayments could not be made and the bank sued for possession. Wife claimed she has an equitable interest by way of constructive trust.

• HL held: that direct contributions sufficed to establish a beneficial entitlement under a constructive trust.

• Issues: Why is the court paying attention to the nature of the contribution, not its size?

Midland Bank v Cooke

• Facts: Husband & wife received 1.1k wedding present, which they used for the mortgage. CA held that 50% of that was B’s, therefore she had direct contribution. However, gifts aren’t meant to count as DC…

• Court will find DC even if it’s minor.

Stack v Dowden [2007]

• Common intention can be implied (though NOT imputed) with reference to indirect financial contributions, amongst all other relevant circumstances.

• However, Stack is a joint holder, not sole holder case. But, SC likely to apply Stack to sole holder case too

Step 2: Establishing Detriment

• Contributions to the purchase price play a dual role. They give rise to evidence that there was a common intention AND they are automatically treated as detriment even B makes a profit off these contributions (Grant v Edwards).\

Greasley v. Cooke (1980)

• Lord Denning suggests that, if there is evidence of ‘detriment’, there should be a presumption of reliance. Thus, unless proved otherwise, court assumed B relied on A’s assurance.

Chun v. Ho (2001)

• Detriment is satisfied even if B's actions were in part...