Mapa mental
Implied trusts
Contenido del mapa
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
- = not an express trust, but gratuitous disposition, so PRT
- H later wanted property back, but E had sold to M (M knew of H being landlady)
- H tried to give property to E on trust, but no evidence of trust
- Hodgson v Marks
- 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
- W sold house
- W bought family home with H's money, conveyed into her name for convenience
- 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
- Bought flat to be put into W’s name, but H paid everything. They split – H tried to claim PRT
- Au Keong (A Male) v Chung Lau Hoi
- 3. loan
- Wong Chim-ying v Cheng Kam-wing
- Gratuitous disposition (voluntary conveyance into another's name)
- trust of a legal estate --> result to the one who advanced the purchase money
- Automatic resulting trust
- an incomplete or failure of an express trust to dispose of the whole of the beneficial interest
- Presumption (resulting trust + advancement)
- 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
- Court: trustee must not make unauthorized profit from his fiduciary position
- B has no shares - so solicitor buys for him --> both profit
- solicitor goes to a beneficiary's private investing meeting. realize company has potential - encourage beneficiary to buy shares
- Boardman v Phipps
- 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
- H already said W would get the house (life interest), but no written evidence
- Bannister v Bannister
- 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)
- G needed C's help to purchase property + lived alone + said C's name would be taken off legal title after a year
- 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
- unless evidence of vitiating factor OR trust varied
- express declaration of trust in writing --> court give effect --> hold property 50/50
- 2. are they tenants in common?
- presumption: hold in proportion to their contribution
- direct contribution to purchase price (deposit, mortgage from start, etc)
- presumption: hold in proportion to their contribution
- 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
- unless evidence of contrary intention
- presume they are joint tenants (so both will have beneficial interest)
- 1. are they joint tenants?
- Carlton v Goodman
- rebut presumption: evidence that a party was not INTENDED to have interest
- joint names --> presume that both parties have a beneficial interest in the property (joint survivorship)
- 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
- rebuttable
- look at direct contributions to purchase price
- 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
- 1. there must be a common intention/bargain
- 3 factors
- 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)
- indirect contributions not acknowledged
- need direct financial contribution towards initial purchase price (not mortgage)
- detrimental reliance
- unconscionability
- conduct --> infer common intention to share equitable interest
- proportion of interest <-- look at whole course of dealing
- same 3 factors
- if overlap with RT, use CT
- When common intention to share beneficial interest established – presumption of RT rebutted- should apply CICT
- express agreement
- common intention at time of acquisition + breach of faith to resile
- 3. proprietary estoppel
- same 3 elements
- interest = "the minimum to do equity"
- 1. resulting trust
- UNLESS claimant can establish interest via:
- equity follows law --> presumption: sole beneficial owner
- 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)
- relationship ended --> W claimed interest
- M said "no need to worry - you'll always have a roof over your head"
- woman left husband --> moved into lover's house --> lived there with child
- 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)
- P: 2 pregnancies
- 3 elements
- Promissory estoppel
- A. both parties are the legal owners
- 3. Legal ownership
- if unmarried OR not divorce --> court has no power to award interest in the property
- s.5(2): resulting, implied, constructive trusts
- CPO s.5(1)(b): written + signed
- 2. is there a valid and enforceable trust?
- 2. How much will the claimant party get?
- 1. Does the claimant party get an interest?
- 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
- P bank tried to enforce security against D (sole legal owner)
- Lloyds Bank plc v Russet
- court will use trust law principles
- 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%
- P had made HSBC the trustee
- Kan Lai Kwan v Poon Lok To Otto
- pre/post-nuptial agreements - not binding, but court may consider
- No - dispute is with 3P
- is the dispute part of divorce, decree of nullity, or judicial separation proceedings?
- No - couple is not married
- 1. is the couple married?
- how to decide if the parties have an interest in the family home?
- 1. Trustee in breach of trust
- arises when: i.e.
- Resulting trust
Información
- Descripción
- Mapa Mental sobre Implied trusts, creado por Joanna Ip el 12/11/2016.
- Creado por
- Joanna Ip
- Visitas
- 1
- Valoración