Rebutting the presumption of Resulting Trust Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v

Rebutting the presumption of resulting trust charles

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 8 pages.

***Rebutting the presumption of Resulting Trust - Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353 When the presumption of resulting trusts arises, evidence can be admitted of the actual intention of the parties to prove that no such trust was intended Intention remains paramount in resulting trusts and evidence of the circumstances surrounding the transfers is admissible, whether it be written or parol evidence. However, it is important to note that the evidence must relate to the intention of the parties at the time that the interests were created The presumption can be rebutted or qualified by evidence which manifests an intention to the contrary . Apart from admissions, the only evidence that is relevant and admissible comprises the acts and declarations of the parties before or at the time of the purchase … or so immediately thereafter as to constitute a part of the transaction.” Presumption of Advancement Equity refuses to presume an intention to create a RT and instead presumes that any purchase or contribution was intended to be a gift by way of advancement Grey v Grey Resulting Trust will not arise when there is evidence of actual intention of the parties. Effect of PoA is to override the presumption of RT, which the result that the legal and equitable states will stay where they lie.
Image of page 5
Can be rebutted by the evidence of intention of the contributing parties at the time of the transfer. If shown that there was no actual intention to confer a beneficial interest on the legal title holder, the presumption will not be effective and the normal presumption of RT will apply Calverley v Green Onus of rebutting lies on the person asserting an RT, not PoA - Calverley v Green Arises in: 1. Transfers from husbands to wives Arises when a husband either provides the PP or makes contributions to the PP of a property in which the which is given a legal interest Can arise in regards to fiancée or intended wife – Wirth v Wirth (1956). This is a gift in contemplation of marriage. If the marriage does not occur the gift should be returned; not returned held on RT: Jenkins v Wynen [1992] Joint Purchase of matrimonial home: Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2000] o Barrister becomes bankrupt after failing to pay income tax for nearly 45 years o He and his wife purchased a house where Mr Cummins had contributed 23.7% to the PP and Mrs Cummins had contributed 76.3% o He then transferred his legal and beneficial interest in the matrimonial home to his wife o High Court: found that transaction was void became main purpose was to avoid creditors Where Husband and wife purchase a matrimonial property it will generally be inferred that the property will be held equally between them irrespective of the contributions that were made If the property has been registered in joint names, equity will not interfere with that JT by creating disproportionate shares reflecting their contributions Sui Mei Huen v Official Receiver for Official Trustee in Bankruptcy o Federal Court: Cummins presumption of JT is not irrebuttable; it could be displayed by an express or constructive agreement between a husband and wife concerning their interests.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture