RESULTING TRUST
Assignment-Margaret
Answering Pattern
Margaret was a wealthy widow. In 2009, she transferred 500 shares in Eastco Ltd to
her son Alan. She also paid the purchase price for a fee simple estate in Blackacre to
be conveyed to her friend Dan. After the transactions were complete, Margaret
telephoned Dan and told him that Blackacre was purchased in his name to be held in
trust for Margaret’s infant daughter Ellen. In 2010, fearing she would have to sell her
fee simple estate in Whiteacre in order to satisfy her creditors, Margaret transferred it
to her niece Bella. Bella orally agreed to re-transfer the estate to Margaret if the
creditors cancelled the debt. In 2011, Margaret married Zach. In 2012, she made a new
will naming Zach as the sole beneficiary of her estate and she also repaid all her
creditors. Margaret died in 2014. Zach now claims that the Eastco Ltd shares,
Blackacre, and Whiteacre were all held on resulting trust for Margaret when she died
and therefore form part of her estate. Advise Zach.
Introduction: highlight that a RT is being claimed
-identify and label the different transactions: voluntary conveyance of shares;
purchase contribution in Blackacre and voluntary conveyance of Whiteacre.
Para 2/3: Start with Alan
-voluntary conveyance of shares-personal property-define such conveyance-
triggers presumption of RT-Re Vinogradoff. Contrast approach with Fowkes v
Pascoe-if the presumption of RT arises: Alan-contrary evidence to rebut the
presumption-Re Cochrane’s ST
-however, Margaret was a widow-the presumption of advancement may instead
apply-this will benefit Adam
-define presumption of advancement and how it applies with cases-then give
general approach for mothers-Sekhon v Alissa and then discuss CPS v Malik
-mention brief criticism and then highlight presumption is set to be abolished
(Equality Act 2010; s 199)- apply: had the presumption been abolished what
Assignment-Margaret
Answering Pattern
Margaret was a wealthy widow. In 2009, she transferred 500 shares in Eastco Ltd to
her son Alan. She also paid the purchase price for a fee simple estate in Blackacre to
be conveyed to her friend Dan. After the transactions were complete, Margaret
telephoned Dan and told him that Blackacre was purchased in his name to be held in
trust for Margaret’s infant daughter Ellen. In 2010, fearing she would have to sell her
fee simple estate in Whiteacre in order to satisfy her creditors, Margaret transferred it
to her niece Bella. Bella orally agreed to re-transfer the estate to Margaret if the
creditors cancelled the debt. In 2011, Margaret married Zach. In 2012, she made a new
will naming Zach as the sole beneficiary of her estate and she also repaid all her
creditors. Margaret died in 2014. Zach now claims that the Eastco Ltd shares,
Blackacre, and Whiteacre were all held on resulting trust for Margaret when she died
and therefore form part of her estate. Advise Zach.
Introduction: highlight that a RT is being claimed
-identify and label the different transactions: voluntary conveyance of shares;
purchase contribution in Blackacre and voluntary conveyance of Whiteacre.
Para 2/3: Start with Alan
-voluntary conveyance of shares-personal property-define such conveyance-
triggers presumption of RT-Re Vinogradoff. Contrast approach with Fowkes v
Pascoe-if the presumption of RT arises: Alan-contrary evidence to rebut the
presumption-Re Cochrane’s ST
-however, Margaret was a widow-the presumption of advancement may instead
apply-this will benefit Adam
-define presumption of advancement and how it applies with cases-then give
general approach for mothers-Sekhon v Alissa and then discuss CPS v Malik
-mention brief criticism and then highlight presumption is set to be abolished
(Equality Act 2010; s 199)- apply: had the presumption been abolished what
