Common intention constructive trusts by V

vallan — 2025-02-20 11:14:47 UTC

What are the three requirements laid out in Lloyd's Bank v Rosset in respect of finding that a common intention constructive trust arose?

2025-02-20 11:21:27 UTC

Common intention, agreement between parties, detrimental reliance

2025-02-20 11:21:29 UTC

common intention- express or inferred

detrimental reliance

to be unconscionable

2025-02-20 11:23:10 UTC

common intention (express or inferred), detrimental reliance and unconscionable

vallan — 2025-02-20 11:24:36 UTC

1) Which type of individual is most likely to come to court asking for a finding that a common intention constructive trust arose?

2) What set of circumstances might have lead to this predicament?

2025-02-20 11:26:48 UTC

Children
Escape of abusive households

2025-02-20 11:26:53 UTC

1)married couples

2) when the legal owner has mortgaged the land and defaults on the loan repayments and non legal owner seeks to establish beneficial interest

2025-02-20 11:28:23 UTC

1) a divorcing couple, a cohabiting couple as in Grant v Edwards and Eves v Eves

2) separation of relationship, beneficial interest to a party not on the mortgage

2025-02-20 11:29:13 UTC

A couple who are not married.
Where only one of the individuals has legal title/name on title deed, and the other does not, but has an interest in the property

vallan — 2025-02-20 11:35:03 UTC

What is express common intention? Please give one example from the cases we have analysed so far.

2025-02-20 11:36:28 UTC

two parties explicitly communicate and agree that one party should have a beneficial interest in an asset stack v dowdan 2007

2025-02-20 11:39:10 UTC

-agreement between parties that the property is to be shared beneficially

-there must have been an actual conversation between parties (said expressly)

example:

o,neill v holland

=d wrongly told claimant that she 'would not get a mortgage'

=denied business relationship - was just his business alone as properties belonged to him (he said it would not be shared)

2025-02-20 11:41:21 UTC

express common intention is an actual conversation between parties, finding an arrangement based of express evidence. where legal owner has made an excuse permitting non legal owner to become legal owner.

Hammond v Mitchell

O'neil v Holland

eve v eve

grant v edwards

2025-02-20 11:42:01 UTC

Where there has been actual conversation between
the parties, on the basis of which the courts can say that
there was a common intention
O'Neill v Holland - The defendant told the claimant 'that she would
not get a mortgage'

vallan — 2025-02-20 11:48:18 UTC

What is inferred common intention? Please give one example from the cases we have analysed so far.

2025-02-20 11:50:36 UTC

where there is a shared understanding or agreement between parties regarding ownership interest in properties stack v dowdon 2007

2025-02-20 11:52:17 UTC

inferred common intention is when the non-legal owner has made direct contributions to the purchase price or mortgage repayments.

In Rosset Lord Bingham said "is at least extremely doubtful whether anything less will do"

Midlands bank v cooke

Drake v Whipp

2025-02-20 11:52:52 UTC

When the non-legal owner has made direct contributions to the purchase price or to the mortgage
repayments.
For example, in Midland Bank v Cooke, W argued that her signature had been obtained by her husband's undue influence. The judge held that the bank had known of H's undue influence and that the consent was not binding on W. He also found that she had an equitable interest in the property which depended on her monetary contribution which was her share of the wedding gift.

2025-02-20 11:53:09 UTC

-when non legal owner has made direct contributions to the purchase price or mortgage repayments

-even if not expressly said, the courts can infer that there has been common intention from their actions and so they will both have an interest in the house

case:

midland bank v cooke

=although it had not been discussed by parties, the court inferred implied agreement that plaintiff should have a share in the house (silent agreement as to quantum)