Lecture 9 – Constructive Trusts
Last lecture we dealt with identification. Equity is a parallel set of rules.
PE and CT are creatures of equity. Also, RT you get out what you put in.
Express agreement or implied bargain, you infer but only by one action,
financial contributions to the purchase price.
Key case for acquisition: Lloyd’s bank v Rossett. Where there is deception
like in Eves, the court is more lenient.
Grant v Edwards:
Pre-Rossett. Unmarried. Grant had legal title with his brother. Edwards
was told she couldn’t be on the title, deception case. Limited financial
continuations and she wasn’t there at the beginning. What conduct would
she need to show to get an interest under a contructive trust?
“So what sort of conduct is required? In my judgment, it must be
conduct on which the woman could not reasonably have been
expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the
house.”648 G-H, Lord Nourse).
She did get interest in the end, because of deception. Here not as much
work put in by the women as in Eves, she only contributes to the second
mortage. The law is almost unfair, but needs to be super unfair to the
deceiving party if you didn’t contribute at the beginning.
Burns v Burns:
Weren’t married. She didn’t pay much and got nothing:
Fox LJ in Burns: “if a payment cannot be said to be, in a real sense,
referable to the acquisition of the house it is difficult to see how, in
such a case as the present, it can base a claim for an interest in the
house.
“I think it would be quite unreal to say that, overall, she made a
substantial financial contribution towards the family expenses. That
is not in any way a criticism of her; it is simply the factual position”
(330G).
“The mere fact that parties live together and do the ordinary
domestic tasks is, in my view, no indication at all that they thereby
intended to alter the existing property rights of either of them”.
Last lecture we dealt with identification. Equity is a parallel set of rules.
PE and CT are creatures of equity. Also, RT you get out what you put in.
Express agreement or implied bargain, you infer but only by one action,
financial contributions to the purchase price.
Key case for acquisition: Lloyd’s bank v Rossett. Where there is deception
like in Eves, the court is more lenient.
Grant v Edwards:
Pre-Rossett. Unmarried. Grant had legal title with his brother. Edwards
was told she couldn’t be on the title, deception case. Limited financial
continuations and she wasn’t there at the beginning. What conduct would
she need to show to get an interest under a contructive trust?
“So what sort of conduct is required? In my judgment, it must be
conduct on which the woman could not reasonably have been
expected to embark unless she was to have an interest in the
house.”648 G-H, Lord Nourse).
She did get interest in the end, because of deception. Here not as much
work put in by the women as in Eves, she only contributes to the second
mortage. The law is almost unfair, but needs to be super unfair to the
deceiving party if you didn’t contribute at the beginning.
Burns v Burns:
Weren’t married. She didn’t pay much and got nothing:
Fox LJ in Burns: “if a payment cannot be said to be, in a real sense,
referable to the acquisition of the house it is difficult to see how, in
such a case as the present, it can base a claim for an interest in the
house.
“I think it would be quite unreal to say that, overall, she made a
substantial financial contribution towards the family expenses. That
is not in any way a criticism of her; it is simply the factual position”
(330G).
“The mere fact that parties live together and do the ordinary
domestic tasks is, in my view, no indication at all that they thereby
intended to alter the existing property rights of either of them”.
