{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

The mortgage loan also funded the construction of a

Info iconThis preview shows pages 4–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The mortgage loan also funded the construction of a home. 3. They pooled their earnings to cover mortgage repayments, household expenses 4. On termination of the relationship, W claimed a beneficial interest. BAUMGARTNER V BAUMGARTNER: HCA 1. No evidence of actual common intention that W would have a beneficial interest. 2. H & W pooled their earnings for purposes of their joint relationship, including accommodation. HELD : No need for a common intention, as failing to recognise W’s contributions would be unconscionable. WHY ? Because of what was said in point 2!!! Deane, Mason and … said that you DON’T need an intention to create a CT. Instead, it would be unconscionable…it was unconscionable for him to hold onto such circumstances if it was never intended to be such a way. 3. H’s assertion, after the failure of the relationship, that he held sole beneficial title to the property, financed in part through the pooled funds, was unconscionable 4. Equity would impose upon him a CT to hold himself and W in shares 55/45 (based on their respective contributions to the pool). REQUIREMENTS FOR A BAUMGARTNER CT 4
Background image of page 4

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
5 1. A joint endeavour or joint relationship 2. Pooling of resources for purposes of the joint endeavour 3. Upon termination of the joint endeavour or relationship, it must be unconscionable in the circumstances for the legal owner to retain the benefit of the contributions made by the other. Point 3 WON’T be made out even if 1 and 2 are all the time. ** A constructive trust is looking at a relationship, whereas in RT, looking at situation at time of acquisition. SO, in a Baum case, will look at mortgages, rates payments, setting up a business etc .** PARIJ V PARIJ : FACTS 1. Parties in de facto relationship 17 years 2. Each paid for discrete household expenses, although didn’t actually pool their earnings. 3. H was able to earn high income and acquire assets because of W’s domestic contributions 4. Did W have a property right in assets to which she had not made a direct financial contribution (‘the other assets’) PARIJ V PARIJ: SC of SA 1. W entitled to a 20% share in the other assets ON TOP of what TJ said she was entitled to. Non-financial contributions might include care. See Puvall J. Normally would look for pooled funds, BUT not necessary. W’s domestic work allowed H to work and pay-off assets **SO, 1 – Looking for an intention to acquire assets and a joint venture, assets acquired for that JV or relationship. 2 – Pooling of funds/resources for the benefit of these joint resources. 3 – JV NOT required. 4 – It would be unconscionable to deny her share of the assets.** 2. Actual pooling of funds not always required. 3. Court can take account of how the parties conducted their relationship and the contributions of each, including non-financial contributions.
Background image of page 5
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page4 / 47

The mortgage loan also funded the construction of a home 3...

This preview shows document pages 4 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

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