{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

That is c contributed 23 g merely 13 even if g

Info iconThis preview shows pages 3–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
That is, C contributed 2/3, G merely 1/3. **Even if G repayed C, C would still be held to own the property in equity, as at time of making agreement, C had paid it off. OGILIVE V RYAN: THE FACTS 1. O (Mr. Ogilvie) suggested to R (Ms Ryan) that he would buy a house for them both to live in. She would take care of him for the rest of his life and on his death the house would be hers so long as she lived. 2. R cared for O for the remaining 2 years of his life. On his death, the will gave her no interest and R’s executors sought to evict her. Could she enforce the life estate? No, as no part performance for an oral K. So, had to find it in a trust. ELEMENTS OF COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – HOLLAND J in Ogilvie v Ryan 1. Existence of an actual common intention that claimant was to have a beneficial interest in the property. 2. Claimant has acted to his or her detriment in reliance on the common intention. In O v R, this occurred!!! 3. It would be unconscionable in the circumstances for legal owner to deny the oral agreement and defeat the beneficial interest that was promised. In O v R, court held it would be this!!! UNCONSCIONABLE RETENTION OF BENEFIT: MUSCHINSKI V DODDS 1. M & D (de facto couple) bought land 2. M provided the purchase price. 3. Intention was that D would restore the cottage and build a home 4. Land transferred to them as tenants (that is, they “held” the property) in common in equal shares 5. Relationship ended before the works were done. 6. M had contributed 90% - wanted declaration that D held his share on trust for her. 3
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
4 MUSCHINSKI V DODDS 1. ‘Where a joint venture is frustrated, through no fault of the parties, and the contract has not provided for this, equity can intervene to ensure the parties receive a proportionate repayment of their capital investment’. Another basis for a constructive trust 2. Deane J (Mason J agreeing) MUSCHINSKI V DODDS: DEANE J 1. M’s payment of the purchase price was made for the purposes of a planned joint venture. 2. Under the joint venture, she was to put in her contribution at the outset and he was to make his contribution later. 3. That venture was frustrated through neither party’s fault. 4. It would be unconscionable for him to retain half- ownership, when it was never intended that he should. 5. Equity will impose a constructive trust to prevent that unconscionable conduct. 6. Basically, you get back what you put in. MUSCHINSKI V DODDS: QUANTIFYING THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES 1. The parties hold their legal interests upon trust to repay joint debts incurred in improving the property the respective contributions of each anything left over to be shared equally. 2.
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page3 / 47

That is C contributed 23 G merely 13 Even if G repayed C C...

This preview shows document pages 3 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online