STACK V DOWDEN ESSAY QUESTION

The Court was concerned with a cohabitating couple who had intended to purchase their home in joint names but was advised to register it under the sole name of Ms Hurst due to his poor credit rating. Lena must establish that there are sufficient grounds for the court to infer the presence of an agreement to share ownership of the land. She also owned a substantial sum of money. If the answer is no and the principles are limited to the issue of quantifying the extent of those shares only in sole and joint name cases, it means that the approach of Lloyds Bank applies in acquisition cases and a common intention constructive trust may be triggered only by express promises or payments to the purchase price. This problem question concerns the validity of charitable gifts. Case laws have squarely been on the issue of common intention.

Dyer v Dyer 2 Cox Eq. The next part of the essay which comprises the main body of our discussion seeks to explain what the Supreme Court ruling in Jones did, and what it failed to do, to clarify the law of co-ownership in respect of the beneficial rights of cohabitants. Highlighted text indicates that further details are available by selecting it. Equity and Trust Law Level: He has provided for his family and wanted to leave some charitable gifts. Help Center Find new research papers in:

The question requires us to consider the relationship between common law and equity. The issue which turned on the court was therefore one of common intention and its consequent effect on the quantification of beneficial interests in property as between the parties. Related to this is the question of at what point is the joint tenancy in equity severed? Remember me on this computer. Where there is no express agreement as to the beneficial shares, the courts historically used resulting trust principles: Her Ladyship suggested a further possibility that whatever the parties’ intentions at the outset, there may be reasons to conclude that these have now changed.

If the answer is no and the principles are limited to the issue of quantifying the extent of those shares only in sole and joint name cases, it means that the approach of Lloyds Bank applies in acquisition cases and a common intention constructive trust may be triggered only by express promises or payments to the purchase price.

  FORSKELLEN PÅ ESSAY OG KLUMME

Therefore Lena needs to establish that she has a proprietary interest in the house using the conventional rules of property law. In doing so, I will address the difficulties faced by the courts pre-Jones, before moving on to discuss Jones and to evaluate its consequent impact on the law.

The court will award Lena the minimum remedy necessary to satisfy the estoppel, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, including the need to achieve, so far as is possible, a clean break between the parties: Although expenditure of money on the property itself will normally be sufficiently linked to the expectation Pascoe v Turner [] 1 WLRthis is not so clearly the case where the contributions are less directly related to the property — did Lena act as she did in expectation of an interest in the house, or out of love for Jerome?

December 27, Date written: Mandy died in March A look at the decisions in the lower courts in Jones and the reasoning therein illustrates the gravity of the problem which had arisen post-Stack in this regard.

Land Law by Mark Davys | Suggested Answer to Exercise (Part 3)

In the joint legal ownership case of Kernott v Jones a majority of the Supreme Court accepted that whilst the court should seek to discover the actual intentions of the parties, the atack could impute intentions to the parties where it is not possible to infer their intentions from the facts. The court will order the minimum relief necessary to satisfy an estoppel.

stack v dowden essay question

In a conveyance into joint names, equitable ownership would be presumed to be equal even if the contribution to the acquisition was unequal. December 12, Date written: The majority found that since there was inferred conduct there was no need to discuss whether imputation had a role to play in merely diwden the interest each party had, or whether it could also be used to find an equitable interest for a non-legal owner.

  THESIS SUBMISSION MUHS NASHIK

Pettitt v Pettitt and Gissing v Gissing. In this case, however, Jerome alone is the registered proprietor of the legal title to the.

Equity & Trust Law

Third, are judges permitted to impute intentions to the parties which they never actually had? May 19, Date written: Cathy wrote and signed a letter to Marlene, which contained the following sentence: George helpfully lists three questions that remained following the decision in Stack: Mandy placed the letter in an envelope, sealed the envelope, and put it safely away in her desk.

The next part of the essay which comprises the main body of our discussion seeks to explain what the Supreme Court ruling in Jones did, and what it failed to do, to clarify the law of co-ownership in respect of the beneficial rights of cohabitants. Second, are sole-name and joint-name cases different, other than the starting points being, respectively, sole or equal joint beneficial ownership? If there sstack, is imputation stac an option available for the courts, and if so, when is it an option?

Sign in or Register.

This problem question concerns the validity of charitable gifts. Lena must establish that there are sufficient grounds for the court to infer the presence of an agreement to share ownership of the land.

stack v dowden essay question

Highlighted text indicates that further details are available by selecting it. Accordingly, it followed that Kernott’s lack of an expressed or inferred intention to displace the equal split in the property meant he was entitled to an equal share of the former family home. Inthe couple separated.