Fowkes v Pascoe (1874-74) Baker an elderly and wealthy woman transferred £7K to P a young relative who claimed it was a gift. Jessel MR “That is not only a rule of law, but a rule founded on sound policy and good sense. Those that allege that other people, especially in this position, given them large sums of money must prove it, and prove to the satisfaction of a Court of Justice that they are entitled to that sum of money”
Voluntary Transfer If A and B do not want there to be a resulting trust they must make it clear that a gift is to be intended. That evidence would rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. The law remains unaltered by the Law of Property Act 1925 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2013) Mr and Mrs P were divorcing and Mrs P was seeking a financial settlement. She alleged her husband used offshore companies to hold the legal title to several London properties which in reality belonged to him. The houses had been transferred for a nominal sum of £1 (consideration need not be adequate). He refused to disclose his financial records. HELD: Equity presumes that if A transfers to B and does not receive anything in return A does not intend to give away their property. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, B holds the property on trust for A. Lord Sumption “since no explanation has been forthcoming for the gratuitous transfer for this properties there is nothing to rebut the ordinary presumption of equity that PRL was not intended to acquire beneficial interest in them”.
Voluntary Transfer Voluntary Transfer of Personalty There is no statutory intervention here and where personal property is transferred voluntarily, the law will presume that it is held on resulting trust, regardless of whether the transfer is made into the joint names of the transferor and transferee or solely to the transferee. In Re Vinogradof a testatrix transferred an £800 loan into the names of herself and her four-year old granddaughter but continued to receive the dividends until her death. It was held that at her death, the granddaughter held the loan on trust for her grandmother’s estate. It is questionable whether this outcome accurately reflects the intentions of the testator and therefore it is important that where it is intended that a gift be made, that such is evidenced. In Standing v Bowring it was stated that: The rule is well settled that where there is a transfer by a person into his own name jointly with that of a person who is not his child, or his adopted child, then there is prima facie a resulting trust for the transferor. But that is a presumption capable of being rebutted by shewing that at the time the transferor intended a benefit to the transferee.
Purchase in the name of another The basic principle is that property is held on trust for the person who put up the money – regardless of who’s name the property is in.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 30 pages?
- Fall '15
- Law, Wills and trusts, Trust law, Settlor, Automatic Resulting Trust