Mindmap

Implied trusts

Joanna Ip Englisch

Inhalt der Mindmap

Implied trusts

Circumstances --> legal owner doesn't own the property absolutely - owns it on behalf of others
- Resulting trust
  - Presumption (resulting trust + advancement)
    - trust of a legal estate --> result to the one who advanced the purchase money
      - Gratuitous disposition (voluntary conveyance into another's name)
        Hodgson v Marks
        H tried to give property to E on trust, but no evidence of trust
        H later wanted property back, but E had sold to M (M knew of H being landlady)
        = not an express trust, but gratuitous disposition, so PRT
        M was purchaser with knowledge of prior equitable interest = H's trust is binding on him
      - Contribution to purchase price (purchase in the name of another)
        Wong Chim-ying v Cheng Kam-wing
        W bought family home with H's money, conveyed into her name for convenience
        W sold house
        Court: all the purchase money was from H = W merely held it on trust for H
        REBUT presumption if:
        1. presumption of advancement
        2. gift
        Au Keong (A Male) v Chung Lau Hoi
        Bought flat to be put into W’s name, but H paid everything. They split – H tried to claim PRT
        Court: no - this was bought as a gift for W
        3. loan
  - Automatic resulting trust
    - an incomplete or failure of an express trust to dispose of the whole of the beneficial interest
- Constructive trust
  - arises when: i.e.
    - 1. Trustee in breach of trust
      - Boardman v Phipps
        solicitor goes to a beneficiary's private investing meeting. realize company has potential - encourage beneficiary to buy shares
        B has no shares - so solicitor buys for him --> both profit
        Court: trustee must not make unauthorized profit from his fiduciary position
        breach <-- trustee didn't get every beneficiary's authorization
    - 2. fiduciary in breach of duty
      - AG v Reid
    - 3. strangers to the trust damaged the trust
    - 4. trust can prevent fraud
    - 5. unlawful killing
    - 6. vendor is under a specifically enforceable contract
    - 7. to enforce special testamentary trusts
    - 8. express trust lacking formality
      - Bannister v Bannister
        H already said W would get the house (life interest), but no written evidence
        unconscionable for H to resile now
    - 9. give effect to common intention
      - how to decide if the parties have an interest in the family home?
        1. is the couple married?
        No - couple is not married
        1. Does the claimant party get an interest?
        2. is there a valid and enforceable trust?
        CPO s.5(1)(b): written + signed
        s.5(2): resulting, implied, constructive trusts
        Yes trust --> follow the trust
        No trust
        3. Legal ownership
        A. both parties are the legal owners
        joint names --> presume that both parties have a beneficial interest in the property (joint survivorship)
        rebut presumption: evidence that a party was not INTENDED to have interest
        Carlton v Goodman
        G needed C's help to purchase property + lived alone + said C's name would be taken off legal title after a year
        Court: C was never intended to have interest --> C holds on trust for G (no ownership)
        What is the interest?
        1. are they joint tenants?
        express declaration of trust in writing --> court give effect --> hold property 50/50
        unless evidence of vitiating factor OR trust varied
        Jones v Kernott
        Goodman v Gallant
        Chen Tek Yee
        2. are they tenants in common?
        presumption: hold in proportion to their contribution
        direct contribution to purchase price (deposit, mortgage from start, etc)
        3. no express identification of how to split beneficial interest?
        presume they are joint tenants (so both will have beneficial interest)
        unless evidence of contrary intention
        Stack v Dowden
        B. one party is legal owner
        equity follows law --> presumption: sole beneficial owner
        UNLESS claimant can establish interest via:
        1. resulting trust
        look at direct contributions to purchase price
        rebuttable
        presumption of advancement
        gift
        loan
        share proportion <-- contribution
        2. constructive trust
        common intention at time of acquisition + breach of faith to resile
        express agreement
        3 factors
        1. there must be a common intention/bargain
        usually before acquisition
        don't need consensus on size of interests
        based on express discussions
        Hammond v Mitchell
        Eves v Eves
        Grant v Edwards
        But Mo Ying
        2. detrimental reliance
        3. unconscionable/equitable fraud by legal owner
        implied common intention
        same 3 factors
        conduct --> infer common intention to share equitable interest
        need direct financial contribution towards initial purchase price (not mortgage)
        indirect contributions not acknowledged
        Pettit v Pettit
        Gissing v Gissing
        Thomas v Fuller-Brown
        Cooke v Head: "did much more than most women would do"
        "most natural thing in the world for any wife" (Lloyds Bank plc)
        detrimental reliance
        unconscionability
        proportion of interest <-- look at whole course of dealing
        if overlap with RT, use CT
        When common intention to share beneficial interest established – presumption of RT rebutted- should apply CICT
        3. proprietary estoppel
        same 3 elements
        interest = "the minimum to do equity"
        C. neither party is legal owner
        Promissory estoppel
        3 elements
        1. parties are in a relationship involving enforceable/exercisable rights/duties/powers
        2. promisor conveys a clear and unequivocal promise/assurance to promisee <-- words or conduct
        3. promisee reasonably relies on promise --> induced to alter position --> unconscionable for promisor to resile
        Coombes v Smith
        woman left husband --> moved into lover's house --> lived there with child
        M said "no need to worry - you'll always have a roof over your head"
        relationship ended --> W claimed interest
        Court: there had been promise, but W hadn't acted to her detriment (left husband bc unhappy, wanted child herself, gave up job because pregnant)
        Li Yuk Ying v Wong Yuet Kam
        P: 2 pregnancies
        Court: yes detrimental reliance - got pregnant because of promise of a half-share in property by parents-in-law (direct causal link)
        if unmarried OR not divorce --> court has no power to award interest in the property
        2. How much will the claimant party get?
        Yes - married
        is the dispute part of divorce, decree of nullity, or judicial separation proceedings?
        No - dispute is with 3P
        court will use trust law principles
        Lloyds Bank plc v Russet
        P bank tried to enforce security against D (sole legal owner)
        D's wife tried to claim interest in property via CICT = yes
        Yes
        Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance s.4-7
        judge has wide powers to frame and order anciliary orders --> split property between couple
        pre/post-nuptial agreements - not binding, but court may consider
        must be entered into freely and fairly
        if trying to split up companies/trusts --> how much of the company/trust's assets at P's disposal?
        Kan Lai Kwan v Poon Lok To Otto
        P had made HSBC the trustee
        but he reserved power to replace trustee; wrote instructional letters to trustees that were followed = complete control over assets = owns 100%

Informationen

Beschreibung: Mindmap am Implied trusts, erstellt von Joanna Ip am 12/11/2016.
Erstellt von: Joanna Ip
Aufrufe: 1
Bewertung

Implied trusts

Inhalt der Mindmap

Informationen

Feedback

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?