Constructive Trust Cases

?
  • Created by: maya
  • Created on: 17-04-17 16:28
husband does not become entitled to beneficial interest from spending leisure time in garden and house, even when it increases the property value
Pettitt v Pettitt 1969
1 of 13
'Don't worry about the house, its yours'. Created a new model. Indirect contributions can amount to interest if help husband to pay mortgage
Gissing v Gissing 1971
2 of 13
Mother in law paid for an extension.'Justice and good conscience'. Constructive trust.
Hussey v Palmer 1972
3 of 13
Sole legal ownership as women 'too young'. Upholds Gissing v Gissing.
Eves v Eves 1975
4 of 13
Woman paid for nothing apart from a few household appliances. Not possible to infer CICT from payments as they did not help towards acquisition of property.
Burns v Burns 1984
5 of 13
Woman contributed to household expenses but not mortgage payment. Held that she had a share as she acted to her detriment and would not have done so if she didn't believe she had an interest in the house.
Grant v Edwards 1986
6 of 13
'Don't worry about the future, the house is half yours and I will look after you'. Woman postponed interest to her bank.
Hammond v Mitchell 1991
7 of 13
House in sole name as hesitance would not be released to him otherwise. Used house as security for overdraft. 'Direct contributions necessary'
Lloyds Bank v Rosset 1991
8 of 13
Woman paid bills and made substantial improvements. Man remortgaged house to secure debts. Woman postponed interest due to undue influence.
Midland Bank v Cooke 1995
9 of 13
Unmarried couple both contributed to purchase price, renovations and bills. Beneficial interests can be presumed from intentions of parties and any detrimental reliance.
Drake v Whipp 1996
10 of 13
Parties bought house jointly but only in mans name. Evidence of express CI to share but not amount of shares. Courts can decide whats fair in number of shares by looking at whole course of dealing.
Oxley v Hiscock 2004
11 of 13
Cohabitees with legal title in joint names. Joint legal title = joint beneficial interest. Can be displaced by evidence of this not being their intention. Inferred/Imputed intentions discussed here.
Stack v Dowden 2007
12 of 13
When unmarried couple did not discuss shares the court is entitled to impose what they think is fair. When claimant moved out and cashed in on policy their CI changed.
Jones v Kernott 2011
13 of 13

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

'Don't worry about the house, its yours'. Created a new model. Indirect contributions can amount to interest if help husband to pay mortgage

Back

Gissing v Gissing 1971

Card 3

Front

Mother in law paid for an extension.'Justice and good conscience'. Constructive trust.

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Sole legal ownership as women 'too young'. Upholds Gissing v Gissing.

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Woman paid for nothing apart from a few household appliances. Not possible to infer CICT from payments as they did not help towards acquisition of property.

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Equity and Trust Law resources »