Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Common Intent Constructive Trusts Notes

Law Notes > Land Law Notes

Updates Available  

A more recent version of these Common Intent Constructive Trusts notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

In the family home - the "common intent" constructive trust The express agreement constructive trust Basis

*

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991]: o Lord Bridge:
? This arises where at some time before acquisition

*

1. There has been any agreement/understanding reached between then that the property is to be shared beneficially.

*

2. AND C has relied on this to her detriment in order to give rise to proprietary estoppel or a constructive trust. Requirements

*
Evidence of agreement?
o Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991]:
? Lord Bridge:

*
Cases of Eves v Eves where H made excuse to W that would have put house into joint names had W not been under 21 o = evidence of agreement for beneficial interest but sole name legal ownership.

*

*

o Criticism of reasoning + responses
? Gardner: Excuses don't provide evidence of agreement if merely excuses - shows only that one party is not agreeing with another.

*
Glover and Todd: BUT we're looking at objective intentions here - whether excuses etc. would lead reasonable person to believe from utterances that H was declaring himself trustee.

*
Mee: agreement can be inferred where understanding that will share beneficial ownership, but H convinces W that there is some technical reason why they can't be legal owners. o i.e. H is not allowed to profit from his deception and W's detrimental reliance that whatever the legal situation, they will share the house. Detrimental reliance o Grant v Edwards [1986]:
? Nourse LJ:

*
Response to agreement requires conduct on which the woman could not reasonably have been expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the house.
? Browne Wilkinson VC:

*
Reference to estoppel will be helpful here. o Midland Bank v Cooke [1995]:
? Waite LJ:

*
Court won't give effect to conduct and expenditure which could happen in any family life( E.g. decoration and household expenses) o And call it detrimental reliance. A promise of rights in the future is enforceable?

*

o Hammond v Mitchell [1992]: H said after the buying of a bungalow in his own name; "don't worry about the future, because when we are married [the house]
will be half yours anyway, and I'll always look after you and [our child]"
? Waite J:

*
In relation to the bungalow there was express discussion which, although not directed with any precision as to proprietary interests, o was sufficient to amount to an understanding at least that the bungalow was to be shared beneficially.

*
She acted to her detriment in that she gave her full support on two occasions to speculative ventures secured on the entire bungalow property o An indebtedness to which the house and land were all committed up to the hilt
? Herring: controversial, because it looks like a promise relating to rights in the future, rather than being agreements to share in the present o James v Thomas [2007]: H became sole beneficial owner when he bought his siblings' shares in a house by way of a mortgage. Later, he met W and they lived together as man and wife. H and W both worked on improvements to the house. said "these improvements will benefit us both" and "if I die you will be well provided for" to W. H then died.
? Chadwick LJ

*
There is no reason to think that the observation "this will benefit us both" (in relation to the business) o was more than a statement of the obvious: what was of benefit to the business was of benefit to both H and W, for whom the business was their livelihood

*
As for "you will be well provided for" o That is not a representation that W was to have a present proprietary interest in the property ---
? or as a representation that she would have a proprietary interest in the property during Mr Thomas's lifetime. o It was, as it seems to me, a representation as to what the position would be after H's death if they were still living together. When must the agreement take place?
o Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991]:
? Lord Bridge:

*
This arises where at some time before acquisition, or exceptionally at a later date o There has been any agreement/understanding reached between then that the property is to be shared beneficially. o James v Thomas [2007]: H became sole beneficial owner when he bought his siblings' shares in a house by way of a mortgage. Later, he met W and they lived together as man and wife. H and W both worked on improvements to the house. said "these improvements will benefit us both" and "if I die you will be well provided for" to W. H then died.

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.

More Land Law Samples