This is an extract of our Implied Or Resulting Trusts document, which we sell as part of our Trusts and Equity Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Trusts and Equity Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Implied or Resulting trusts Oakley Majority of commentators view the terms implied and resulting trusts as synonymous; Oakley agrees. They arise where a settlor or testator carries out some intentional act other than the creation of a relationship of trustee and beneficiary from which the court infers the relationship of trust Consequently arise from the unexpressed but presumed intention of the settlor/ testator Recognised categories of resulting trusts Two universally recognised:
1. Presumed: where a person pays wholly or in part for the purchase of the property which is vested in the name of another or gratuitously transfers property into the name of another, i.e. where a purchase is made in the name of another person without an express trust being constituted a. then there is generally a rebuttable presumption that no gift was intended: the property in question is presumed to be held on trust for the payer or transferor
2. Automatic: Where a settlor/ testator creating an express trust fails to dispose of the whole beneficial interest in the property in question; a. Law then implies that so much of the beneficial interest is undisposed of is held on trust for the settlor or his estate, or for the tetator's residuary beneficiaries or intestate sucessors Presumed/ automatic distinction suggested by Megarry VC in Re Vandervell's (No2), Megarry said that automatic trusts operated automatically In case of an automatic trust, there can also be said to be a presumed intention on the part of the settlor that the beneficial interest should result to him to the extent that he has failed to dispose of it Browne-Wilkinson disagreed with Megarry's views in Islington LBC Resulting trusts of the second type are not necessarily irrebuttable, as Megarry would seem to suggest - the settlor may have expressly or by necessary implication have abandoned any beneficial in the trust property In this case, property is held on resulting trust for the crown as bona vacantia
Third definition of resulting trusts: "Occur when there is a transfer of property in circumstances in which the provider of that property did not intend to benefit that recipient" nb Air Jamaica v Charlton (PC); Lord Millett - accepts that "resulting trusts arise whether or not the transferor intended to retain a beneficial interest - he almost always does not - since it responds to the absence of any intention on his part to pass a beneficial interest to the recipient" Oakley says this blends new view with that of Browne-Wilkinson, which = English law Other Possible Categories of RT Sometimes contended that resulting trusts can arise as a result of a transfer of property which is void ab initio or voidable HL has rejected ab initio creation, but Millett has said judicially and extra-judicially that a resulting trust will arise when property is transferred pursuant to a transaction which is voidable But when the issue arose, the court considered the trusts in question to be "constructive", as per Browne-Wilkinson in Millett rather than "resulting", as per Millett in El Ajou Purchase in the Name of another Where property is purchased in the name of another, the beneficial interest is normally held to result in favour of the person who paid the money, and the legal title holder merely holds the property on trust for the party who paid the money. Source: Eyre CB in Dyer v Dyer, 1788 In Abrahams v Trustee of Property of Abrahams, woman who bought 15th share of lottery ticket in name of her husband was held to have the beneficial trust in the property and thus a claim superior to his trustee in bankruptcy Principle remains relevant in establishing the ownership of matrimonial property during marriage In the case of joint enterprises between family members, the distinction between resulting trusts and constructive trusts was blurred by Lord Bridge's speech in Lloyd's Bank v Russet Question is whether joint purchasers are "beneficial joint tenants", in which case their survivor will take the property absolutely, or "beneficial tenants in common", in which case the share of each will devolve in accordance with his will or intestancy
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Trusts and Equity Notes.