{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Eg a b and c pay unequal amounts a pays 50 b

Info iconThis preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
E.g. A, B and C pay unequal amounts. A pays 50%, B contributes 30% and C 20%. But the land is transferred to A, B and C jointly. Equity will presume that the joint legal title is held on trust for themselves in shares that reflect the proportions that they each contributed to the price. E.g. A owns land which he transfers to B. B holds the complete legal title. B has not contributed anything to the purchase price. B holds that legal title on trust for the benefit of A. Presumption of a resulting trust can be rebutted in two ways: a) Evidence of a contrary intent – there is evidence that the transferor made it as a gift /repayment of a loan. Must be an actual intention and must be inferred from the words/conduct of the transferor. Cannot be imputed to the transferor. Assess the intent at the time of the transfer. The onus of proving the contrary intention bears upon the gift receiver. ( Muschinsky v Dodds ) b) Presumption of advancement – Where from the circumstances equity presumes that a gift to advance the receivers interest was intended by the transferor. Presumed: Husband to wife, parent to child and (now) mother to child. Child to parent is not approved. Wife to husband is not approved. Does not apply either way to de factos ( Calverley v Green). This rebuttal may itself be rebutted by evidence of a contrary intent. Can you then rebut the presumption of advancement by showing a contrary intention that transferor intended to keep/retain the equitable interest? Calverley v Green (read 8.35/40) Facts: C and G live as a de facto couple for ten years. At the beginning of the relationship he paid $10 a week. As this continued this came to represent a minimal amount. The only way the bank would give them a loan was that both C and G would be mortgagees. Mr G put in 9K and took out a loan jointly for 18K. G and C were registered as joint tenants. He made the 2
Background image of page 2

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
mortgage repayments. Notionally they contributed 9K each through that bank loan. Therefore equity would presume that C has a 2/3 interest and G has 1/3. However is there a presumption of advancement/contrary intent. Presumption may arise where a husband makes the purchase in his wife’s name – the resulting trust was rebutted (according to him in the minority). Presumption of advancement can also be rebutted by contrary intent. Gibbs J: Presumption of a resulting of a resulting trust will arise if they don’t hold legal title equally unless there is evidence of a relationship or contrary intent. Murphy J: Said resulting trust is out-dated and should be scrapped. Majority: A presumption of resulting trust arose because of the equally held legal title but unequal contributions to purchase price. They said that the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted by a presumption of advancement. Looked for contrary intent – i.e. that a gift was intended. Found that there was no evidence that C intended to make a gift. Held that
Background image of page 3
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page2 / 47

Eg A B and C pay unequal amounts A pays 50 B contributes 30...

This preview shows document pages 2 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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