1. Resulting Trusts
   1. Presumption
      1. Where two people contribute to purchase price
      2. Can be rebutted
      3. Only applies to financial contribution
   2. Establishing interest
      1. Gissing v Gissing [1971]
      2. Must have made some direct contribution to purchase price
         1. Deposit
         2. Legal costs
      3. Can be borrowed money
      4. Can include paying bills if this allows other person to pay mortgage
      5. Household work does not count
   3. Assessing size of interest
      1. General rule
         1. Proportionate share
      2. Midland Bank v Cooke
         1. Direct contribution needed to establish interest
         2. Courts then consider other factors in determining share
         3. Can consider non-financial contributions
2. Proprietary Estoppel
   1. Taylor's Fashions LA v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982]
      1. Non-legal owner has belief that will acquire interest in land
         1. Not necessarily agreement
         2. Belief based on conduct of legal owner
      2. Acts to his detriment in reliance on this belief
         1. Must be done because of belief
            1. Coombes v Smith [1986]
         2. Burden is on legal owner to show not in reliance
            1. Greasley v Cooke [1980]
         3. eg improvements to ex-lover's house
         4. eg giving up job
            1. Jones v Jones [1977]
         5. eg looking after ill family member
            1. Greasley v Cook [1980]
         6. eg working for low wages
            1. Wayling v Jones
         7. eg contribution to purchase price
   2. Remedies
      1. Wider range
         1. transfer ownership
            1. Pascoe v Turner (1979)
         2. repay money spent
            1. Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973)
         3. live in property for life
            1. Greasley v Cooke
         4. awarded value of what he had lost - right to live in property for life
            1. Baker v Baker & Baker [1993]
      2. Proportionality
         1. Fulfill claimant's expectations unless disproportionate to detriment
            1. Jennings v Rice [2003]
3. Constructive Trusts
   1. Lloyd's Bank v Rosset
      1. Situation 1
         1. Must be agreement, arrangement or understanding that equitable interest to be shared
            1. Specific statement about ownership must have been made
            2. Does not matter what motivation was
         2. Non-legal owner acts on this agreement to their detriment
            1. Or alters position
            2. Causal test
            3. Non-legal owner would not have acted if the agreement did not exist
            4. Grant v Edwards [1986]
            5. Wielding a 14lb sledge hammer
            6. Objective test
            7. Must be motivated by agreement
            8. Wayling v Jones
            9. Would have carried on working even if promise retracted
            10. eg paying for improvements
            11. eg paying household bills
            12. eg working unpaid
            13. eg demolishing greenhouse
            14. Contractual analysis
            15. Should have made agreement on basis that non-legal owner would take certain action
      2. Situation 2
         1. Court infers common intention from conduct of parties
         2. To do so, need to establish that non-legal owner has made direct contribution to purchase price
            1. Lloyds Bank v Rosset
         3. Shift in law towards taking wider view of contributions
            1. Stack v Dowden
            2. eg contributions to bills to free up finances
   2. Quantifying shares
      1. What the court considers fair
         1. Oxley v Hiscock [2004]
      2. OR survey course of dealings to determine what was intended
         1. Stack v Dowden
            1. Joint names case
            2. Starting point is equal shares
            3. Kept separate accounts