A) Gratuitous Transfer Trusts/ Presumed Resulting Trusts:
1. Voluntary Presumed Resulting Trusts:
S60(3) LPA 1925: In a voluntary conveyance, a resulting trust for the grantor shall not be implied merely by reason that the property is not expressed to be conveyed for the use or benefit or the grantee.

Lohia v Lohia: the purpose of section 60(3) was to do away with the presumption of a resulting trust in the cases of voluntary conveyance [of land] to make necessary for the person seeking to establish a resulting trust to prove it.

2. Contribution to purchase price:

The Venture: Two brothers who had jointly purchased a yacht which was put in the name of one of them. Held, where A has made a monetary contribution to the purchase of property for B a presumed resulting trust arises. It is for the other to displace the presumption upon evidence.

Pettitt v Pettitt: The traditional approach accepts that, if there is not contravening evidence, the contributor to the purchase price acquires a beneficial interest in the property.

Fowkes v Pascoe: Each case is a question of face, there cannot be a legal presumption made beyond all question of any rebutting evidence. Where there is evidence to rebut the presumption, the court must act as jury.

Carlton v Goodman: Carlton had assisted in entering into a joint mortgage with Goodman but had made no re-payments under the mortgage nor had made a contribution to the purchase price of the house. Held, her involvement in the purchase price was too temporary to be considered as a contribution to the purchase price.

Curley v Parkes: Direct or indirect contribution to the mortgage after the date of purchase cannot give rise to a resulting trust; subsequent mortgage repayments after the time of acquisition are not part of the purchase price but rather sums paid to discharge the mortgagor's obligations. Direct contributions to the purchase price e.g.. deposit are relevant.

Stack v Dowden: Dowden and Stack had purchased a house in their joint names funded by the sale of their previous property, which had been in Dowden's sole name and a mortgage held in both names. Mr Stack paid the mortgage interest and endowment policy premiums, while together they paid off the capital, with Dowden contributing a greater proportion. Held, Where domestic property is conveyed to the joint names of cohabitants without any declaration of trust, it is assumed that both legal and beneficial interests in the property are joint and equal. The dividends were spilt 65% / 35%.

Laskar v Laskar: mother and daughter had purchased the property using a mortgage and joint contributions to a deposit.The mother paid all repairs, handled the rents and the mortgage was paid out of the income received. Held, daughter only 4.28% interest purely on the basis of the sum she contributed to the deposit and that no account of rent should be made.

Jones v Kernott: Jones contributed a small sum to purchase a house mortgage, from this point on they shared payment of the household bills and the mortgage. The couple later separated, and Kernott stopped paying his share of the bills and children's maintenance. Held, while the interests of the parties at the outset might well have been that the property should be split jointly, those intentions had altered significantly over the years and the interest was split 90:10 in favour of Ms Jones.

	Created by cadhla_corrigan almost 10 years ago

LLB Trusts and Equity (6. Resulting Trusts) Note on Resulting Trusts, created by cadhla_corrigan on 05/03/2014.

Resulting Trusts