because he was expecting to be able to move back in to Barn, Elvy’s case is that the contributions were simply gifts to her made no doubt in recognition of the relationship. Valuation of Mr. Aspden’s interest is difficult. There were no express discussions and the only valuation I have is that the current value of the barn is of the order of $400,000. In those circumstances,I have to impute an intention by reference to what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between the parties. The submission of Counsel suggested wildly different results. One at most 10%, while the other 75%. In the end I have decided that the appropriate fair assessment of 25%. To my mindthat represents a fair return for the investment of $65,000 to $70,000 and the work carried out by Aspden in a properly now worth $400,000. The figure is somewhat arbitrary but it is the best I can do w/ the available materialCommon intention in the Business Context Laskar v Laskar (2008)P442Facts:A mother and a daughter bought a house together, which they let to tenants. The value of the housewas $79,5000 but it was bought at a discount of $50,805 as a result of the mother’s previous occupationof it as a secured tenant. The daughter paid $3,400 and $43,000 and the mother paid the remainder. Themortgage was paid from rental income which was paid to the mother. The daughter claimed a joint beneficial interest in the property, claiming that where members of a family purchased property in their joint names, there was a presumption of equal interest following Stack v Dowden. Decision:Where members of a family purchased property in their joint names, there was a presumption of equal interest following Stack v Dowden, but this did not apply where the property was purchased as aninvestment when the beneficial interest would reflect their respective contributions to the purchase price by virtue of a resulting trust analysis. Lord Neuberger used resulting trusts, and gave 1/3 to the daughterGeary v Rankine (2012) P438Relevance of Express declaration of trust or other agreementsGallarotti v Sebastianelli (2012)Facts:Sebastianelli made a cash contribution of $86,5000 and Gallarotti contributed $26,896. The property was transferred into Sebastianelli’s sole name and he took out a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price. The Recorder at trial found that the parties had expressly agreed that they would each have a 50% interest in the flat, notwithstanding the unequal contributions. Whether this conclusion that the parties were beneficially entitled to the flat in equal shares right?Decision:
Arden H concluded that the parties could not possibly have intended that the agreement as to equalshares should apply in circumstances where Gallarotti had not made the promised contributions towards the mortgage ; while the Recorder was correct to proceed on the basis that, if there was an express agreement which applied in the circumstances which had arisen, the court would conclude that
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 17 pages?
- Fall '15
- Wills and trusts, Trust law, Concurrent estate, Account of profits, common intention