Trusts of Land and CICT

CICT in English Law

• CICT arises when two or more unmarried coinhabiting partners have a joint beneficial interest in a property but the legal title does not respresnt this 

• Parliament has resisted setting down a statutory framework in these cases 

 

Resulting Trusts in family homes

• Historically resulting trusts were the dominant mode of trusts in family home contexts, due to the historical economic conditions where the father/husband was the main breadwinner and this was tempered by the presumption of advancement 

• Most commonly used where one party had contributed to the purchase price of a property that was registered in someone elses name 

• Often struggled to bite for other contributions 

Decline of Resulting Trusts in family homes

• Lloyds bank v rosset 

  • Transition was necessary because it is necessary to consider the conduct of the parties sharing the house as their home and managing the joint affairs 

• Resulting trusts fail to comprehend the complexities, and non-financial contributions to a household 

Justifying the decline

• Stack v Dowden 

  • Resulting trusts may have worked when the relationships were at an arm's length, but domestic partnerships are a completely different relationship 

• Jones v Kernott 

  • Fails to recognize the complexities of  modern domestic relationships Also agreed with in Pettit v Pettit 

  • Can no longer rely on archacic gender roles 

CICT and Co-habitating partners 

• Substituion of PRTs and presumption of advancement with the equitable maxim of equity follows the law 

• Presumed shared benficial ownership if it is a joint legal title 

• Joint tennants both legally and in equity 

Express intentioon - CICT

S52(1)(B) Propety Act 1925 

Inferred Intention - CICT - Sole Ownership

Onus is on the claimaint to demonstrate a separate beneficial title through the conduct of the proprietor 

Inferred intention - CICT - Joint ownership

Automatically assumed, but can be imputed if cannot find evidence for the proportions of beneficial interests 

Imputed Intention - CICT

Only can be imputed once the issue of separate beneficial titles has been solved 

CICT - Single Ownership Case - Identification of actual agreement, Quantification of Interests

Capehorn v Harris 

• [1] Identification of an actual agreement as to the sharing of beneficial interest, express or inferred 

• [2] Quantification of those benficial interests, may be imputed 

CICT - Single Ownership Cases - Detrimental Reliance

Curran v Collins 

• Detrimental reliance is necessary 

CICT - Single ownership - When does imputed intention arise

Geary v Rankine 

• An imputed intention only arises when the courts are happy that the parties actual intentions were to share the beneficial interest 

Joint Ownership Case - CICT -

Stack v Dowden 

• Assumed that with a joint legal title they are then joint in beneficial title as well; however the proportions do not have to be equal 

CICT - Lady Hale rebutting the presumption of joint beneficial title

Lady Hale 

• Many factors to consider, cases will turned on facts case by case 

Two Legal Controversies in Stack v Dowden

• "Inferred or imputed" - Lady Hale 

  • Clarified in Jones v Kernott 

• "Subsequent agreement" Obiter Dictum Lady Hale 

  • Assume means subsequent express declaration in writing, however been stretched to accommodate other informal meanings in cases such as Cynes v Nisson 

CICT - Joint ownership case in the SC

Jones v Kernott 

• Without inteference it is permissible for a court to impute the proportions of beneficial interest  

CICT - Detrimental Reliance Cases - Sole Ownership

• Archibald v Alexander  

  • Without it it is an unenforcable promise, equity will not assist a volunteer 

CICT - Detrimental Reliance - Joint Ownership

Joint 

• Hudson v Hathway 

  • Detrimental Reliance is still required, it just wasn’t brought up in Stack v Dowden or Joe v Kernott due to the fact it was so uncontestable 

Investment Properties

Marr v Collie