Resulting Trusts

Question	Answer
Vandervell v IRC- Resulting Trusts	Vandervell wished to make a gift to the Royal College of Surgeons. He had only transferred the legal title of the trust and not the beneficial title. Resulting trust were divided into Automatic (failing to dispose of beneficial interest) and Presumed Resulting Trusts (rebuttable presumption from inferred intention).
Westdeutsche Landesbak v Islington- Resulting Trusts	It is necessary that there is an intention that the money be held on trust. This can be rebutted by showing that A intended to make an outright transfer to B. There are two types of resulting trust: Gratuitous Transfer (presumed resulting trust) and Incomplete express trusts (automatic resulting trust)
Lohia v Lohia- Resulting Trusts	the purpose of S60(3) LPA 1925 was to do away with the presumption of a resulting trust in cases of voluntary conveyance of land. The person seeking the trust must prove to establish it.
S53 LPA 1925- Resulting Trusts	Formality rules do not affect the creation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts.
The Venture- Resulting Trusts	Two brothers had jointly purchased a yacht under one of their names. Held, where A has made a voluntary contribution to the purchase price a presumed resulting trust arises. The other must displace this presumption using evidence.
Pettitt v Pettitt- Resulting Trusts	Former husband claimed to have a share in the family home based upon improvements he had made. The presumption of a gratuitous gift between husband and wife should not be immediately presumed. The traditional approach accepts that if there is no contravening evidence, the contributor of the purchase price acquires a beneficial interest in the property.
Fowkes v Pascoe:	Baker bought two sums of stock, one in her name, the other in Pascoe's. Fowkes, the executor, argued that Pascoe held the stock on resulting trust for Baker. Held, there was an obvious continuing intention to make an outright gift. If there is evidence to rebut the presumption the court must act as jury.
Carlton v Goodman- Resulting Trusts	Carlton had assisted in entering a mortgage with Goodman but had not contributed to purchase price or mortgage re-payments. Held, her involvement was too temporary to be considered as a contribution.
Stack v Dowden- Resulting Trusts	Stack and Dowden purchased a property in which Dowden paid more of the purchase price and mortgage. Held, where the property is in joint names there is an immediate assumption that equity follows law and the beneficial interest is 50/50.
Curley v Parkes- Resulting Trusts	Direct or indirect contribution to the mortgage after the date of purchase cannot give rise to a resulting trust. Note: deposits are relevant.
Jones v Kernott- Resulting Trusts	Jones contributed sum to the purchase price and mortgage. They later separated and Kernott stopped paying his share of bills and children's maintenance. Held, there had been a change of intention and so the equal split changed to 9:1
Laskar v Laskar- Resulting Trusts	Mother and daughter purchased property jointly. The mother maid all repairs, rent and mortgage. The daughter only had a 4% interest based on the deposit contribution.
Re Roberts- Resulting Trusts	Father making payments to child invoked the presumption of advancement. As a parent he is benefiting his son.
Bennett v Bennett- Resulting Trusts	The presumption of a gift arises from the moral obligation to provide for a ward. A person (guardian) other than a father may therefore incur the obligation.
S199 Equality Act 2010- Resulting Trusts	Presumption of Advancement is abolished
Nelson v Nelson- Resulting Trusts	There is no need to presume in modern times that a father is presumed to advance their child and a mother is not.
Re Eskyn's Trusts- Resulting Trusts	A gratuitous gift from husband to wife was presumed to be held on resulting trust through the presumption of advancement.
DPP- Resulting Trusts	Resulting trusts can only be rebutted by evidence. The presumption of advancement of husband to wife only applies in limited circumstance.
Warren v Gurney- Resulting Trusts	A father purchased a house for daughter on wedding but kept the deeds for himself. This showed that there was no intention to give a gift and that he intended for them to repay the money. The presumption of Advancement was rebutted.
Lavelle v Lavelle- Resulting Trusts	Property had been purchased in the name of the appellant by her father. Although the presumption of advancement was applied, there intention of the transferrer rebutted this. No gift was intended.
Antoni v Antoni- Resulting Trusts	Father was beneficial owner of properties which was transferred to his children. Before he died he invoked the will, leaving everything to his new wife. Held, there was nothing to rebut the presumption of advancement from father to children.
Muckleston v Brown- Resulting Trusts	He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. The court cannot confiscate illegal trust property so they "let the estate lie where it falls".
Tinker v Tinker - Resulting Trusts	Family was conveyed to wife's name so if business is in trouble the creditors could not take their home. Clean hands rule: someone cannot rely on their illegality to make a claim. Tinker could not use his illegality to rebut the presumption of advancement.
Tinsley v Milligan- Resulting Trusts	Tinsley sought possession of a house that was solely in her name as a way of claiming social security. Held, Milligan could not invoke the presumption of a resulting trust relying on the illegality. The court must weigh the consequences of granting relief when fraud had been committed.
Silverwood v Silverwood- Resulting Trusts	Elderly woman transferred money to her grandchildren in order to claim income support. Held, the plaintiff was entitled to the money under a resulting trust as the grandmother could not rely on her illegality as a defence.
Tribe v Tribe - Resulting Trusts	In order to avoid liability for repairs, he attempted to deceive the landlord by selling his shares to his son. When it was evident he did not need to continue with the plan, he asked for them back. Held, illegality could be used as evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement if it shows that he has withdrawn from the transaction (locus poenitentie)
Nelson v Nelson- Resulting Trusts	Mother transferred house into children's name to become eligible for a loan. The presumption of advancement was rejected because there was no real intention to benefit her children although she had no intention to withdraw from the action.
Re Boyes - Resulting Trusts	testator instructed his solicitor to draft a will leaving all his property to the solicitor to be held by himself and distributed as instructed. After the testator's death a paper was found indicating his wish for the property to be given to X and Y. The court held that these terms were not included in the actual trust. There was a failure to transfer the full beneficial interest and so the transfer was not binding. The property remained on resulting trust.
Re Ames Settlement- Resulting Trusts	Property was settled expressly on trust as part of a marriage settlement. Although the parties went through the ceremony of marriage and lived together, it was not official. The court held the marriage to be null and so the property was held on automatic resulting trust for them by the settlor.
Re Abbot Fund Trusts- Resulting Trusts	Trust fund for two old ladies. After they died the surplus went back to the settlor. (this is put aside if the trust is to benefit a specific individual)
Re Andrew's Trust- Resulting Trusts	Friends of dead clergy men contributed money for his daughter's education. The surplus remained with the daughter as it was a gift to benefit her.
Re Osoba- Resulting Trusts	Father gave daughter money to further her education. Held, the money was a gift to benefit her in the hopes it was used for education.
Cunnack v Edwards- Resulting Trusts	Fund set up for widows of deceased members of the front. After the last widow died there was a surplus of money. There was no more equitable or legal rights left in the money.
Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund- Resulting Trusts	People made contributions to the fund which ultimately failed. The money went back to the contributors of resulting trust although the money amounts were so small it was not very practical.
Hillridge- Resulting Trusts	Operator had made financial provision for its licence obligations via a trust fund. A disclaimer does not terminate a trust nor does it make the fund repayable to the liquidators. It merely serves to divest Hillridge of any interest in the fund.
Re West Sussex Constabulary's Trusts - Resulting Trusts	Trust fund for Constabulary's widows was moved to a fund for the police. The money was collected through the members, raffles, collecting boxes and donations. All the money except from the donations was bona vacantia (ownerless) except from the donations.
Re Bucks Constabulary Widow's and Orphan's Fund - Resulting Trusts	An unincorporated association registered under the Friendly Societies Act to give relief to widows and orphans. Held, the present members shared the surplus money equally on resulting trust.
David v Richards Wallington- Resulting Trusts	A pension fund was wound up after the company ran into financial difficulty. The trust deed stipulated that the trustees had authority to pay any remaining interest back to the company on resulting trust.
Air Jamaica v Charlton- Resulting Trusts	Air Jamaica was privatised and employee pension was discontinued. The surplus was held on bona vacantia to the Crown because there was a clause stating the money could not go back to the company.
Barclay's Bank v Quistclose Trust:	Quistclose agreed to lend money on the condition that the dividend would be paid with it. The Company fell into liquidation before it was used. Held, the money was held on resulting trust for Quistclose: where a trust is made for a specific purpose and fails, the money is held on resulting trust for the original creditor, it "jumps back" to them.
Re Krayford- Resulting Trusts	The director of Krayford was concerned about insolvency and so opened an account where they placed their customer's money. Held, this money was held on resulting trust for their customers.
Re EVTR- Resulting Trusts	If part of the money advanced has been used to for the specific purpose, the rest of the money can still be held on a Quistclose trust.
Twinsectra v Yardley - Resulting Trusts	2 solicitors failed to pay loan to Twinsectra whom had lent the money on the basis that Yardley's soilictor would forward it for buying property. Yardley did not do so. Held, the middleman solicitor closed his eyes to the risk of the loan being misapplied but was not dishonest enough for accessory liability. 'He must have acted dishonestly by the standards of a reasonable man and must be aware himself that he transgressed the ordinary standards of honesty'
Cooper- Resulting Trusts	The applicant applied for a declaration that the moneys paid by him tot he responded company were held on trust for the purpose of paying a third party. Held, it must be clear that the money provided to the recipient was not to their free disposal.
Pearson v Lehman Brothers- Resulting Trusts	Lord Millett believed that if A transfers money to B for a specific purpose, then B holds no beneficial interest in the property but holds it as a fiduciary.
S340 Insolvency Act 1986	Where an individual is bankrupt and has given preference to a person, the trustee can apply to the court for restoring their position as if there had been no preference.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by cadhla_corrigan almost 10 years ago