Trusts 9 Common Intention Constructive Trusts and Family Homes

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973/ Civil Partnership Act 2004

Gives courts the discretion to allocate ownership fairly between the parties

Pettitt v Pettitt

If there is an express trust which satisfies s53(1)(b) LPA 1925, this will determine the beneficial interests of the property

Stack v Dowden

It is presumed that the beneficial ownership of the land mirrors the legal ownership

Jones v Kernott

Two-step approach in joint legal ownership cases:

* Rebutting the Presumption
* Quantification

Rebutting the Presumption

Did the parties have a common intention to hold the property other than as joint tenants? 

Quantification

If the parties are not joint tenants, they must be tenants in common. But in what proportions?

Non-Exhaustive List of Facts to consider when rebutting the presumption of common intention

* Advice or discussions the parties had which may indicate their intention. 
* The reason legal title was registered in particular names. 
* The purpose for which the parties acquired the House. 
* The nature of the relationship. 
* Whether the parties have children. 
* How the house was financed. 
* How the parties arranged other finances and divided responsibility for household expenses. 

Quantification and Intention

The court may find, infer or impute intention to quantify the proportions of ownership

Fowler v Barron

Financial contributions alone are not enough to rebut the presumption of joint tenancy

Adekunle v Ritchie

Presumption of joint tenancy was rebutted where it was clear that the house was purchased jointly as an acquisition for the mother who would have wanted her other children to benefit

Barnes v Phillips

Confirmed that there is a distinction between the two stages and that imputation can only occur at the quantification stage

Hammond v Mitchell

“half yours” indicated intention of joint ownership

Clough v Killey

“50:50” indicated intention of joint ownership

Lloyds Bank v Rosset

“family home” did not indicate intention of joint ownership

James v Thomas

“benefit…both of us” did not indicate intention of joint ownership

Thomson v Humphrey

“you will be looked after” did not indicate intention of joint ownership

Excuses (Curran v Collins)

May evidence common intention as the legal owner provides an excuse as to why the partner may not be jointly registered as legal owner but inferences should not be drawn too readily

Oxley v Hiscock

court could determine shares of the property based on what it considered fair in light of the parties’ “whole course of dealing*”* in relation to the property 

Thomson v Humphrey

Looking after the family and playing the traditional wife role was not enough to amount to detrimental reliance. 

Aspden v Elvy

Common intention was inferred by a man’s substantial contributions in work and money which increased the land’s value

Grand v Edwards

Detrimental reliance amount to conduct which is otherwise inexplicable

Proprietary Estoppel

An equitable doctrine which enables a person to informally acquire property or personal rights and can be used as a claim or a defence

Pascoe v Turner

* Claimant had made an assurance to the defendant that the house was hers and the defendant acted to her detriment in reliance on that assurance. 
* Accordingly, the defendant had established inequity by way of proprietary estoppel. The most appropriate way to satisfy the equity was to order the claimants to transfer the House to the defendant. Thus, the defendant was entitled to the house. 

Greasley v Cooke

Since the defendant had looked after family for 21 years for no pay, and on the faith of the assurances which Kenneth and his brother had made to her, she had established an equity by way of proprietary estoppel. The equity was satisfied by giving her a licence to occupy the House rent free for the rest of her life.

Elements of a Proprietary Estoppel Claim

* An assurance made to the claimant. 
* Reliance by the claimant on the assurance. 
* Detriment to the claimant in consequence of their reliance

Southwell v Blackburn

Assurance must be an assurance that the claimant has or will acquire writing property owned by the defendant

Wayling v Jones

This means that there must be a sufficient link between the defendants assurance and the claimants detrimental conduct but it does not have to be the sole cause

Gillet v Holt

* Detriment is not a narrow or technical concept. 
* Detriment must be approached as part of a broad inquiry as to whether repudiation of an assurance is or is not unconscionable in all the circumstances. 
* Countervailing benefits can be taken into account when assessing whether the claimant reliance was detrimental. 
* The court must determine whether the conduct is detrimental on the assumption that the defendant will dishonour the assurance. 

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management

A proprietary estoppel claim will only succeed if the defendant’s behaviour shocks the conscience of the court

Sledmore v Dalbu

A proprietary estoppel claim failed for lack of unconscionability

Guest v Guest

overriding objective of a proprietary estoppel claim is to award a remedy that avoids the unconscionable result

Three Principles of a Proprietary Estoppel Remedy

* The remedy should not exceed the claimant's expectation. 
* The Court may award a remedy which satisfies the claimants expectations, but it is not required to do so. 
* The remedy must be proportionate to the claimant's detriment