1. Constructive trusts
   1. Arises where the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for owner of property to assert beneficial interest in property
      1. Paragon Finance v DB Thakerer
   2. Lloyd's Bank v Rosset
      1. Situation 1
         1. Express informal agreement
         2. Must be an agreement, arrangement or understanding that equitable interest is to be shared
            1. Specific statement about ownership must have beem made
            2. Grant v Edwards
            3. Not wanted to prejudice her divorce was held to be a common intention
            4. Curran v Collins
            5. Excuse of not buying two life insurance policies wasn't a statement about ownership
            6. Does no matter what motivation was
         3. Non-legal owner acts on this agreement to their detriment
            1. Or alters their position
            2. Causal test
            3. Non-legal owner would not have acted if the agreement did not exist
            4. Grant v Edwards
            5. Objective test
            6. eg paying for improvements
            7. eg paying household bills
            8. if pursuant to common intention
            9. eg working unpaid
            10. eg demolishing greenhouse
      2. Situation 2
         1. Inferred common intention
         2. Court will infer common intention from conduct of parties
         3. To do so, need to establish that non-legal owner has made direct contribution to purchase price
            1. Lloyd Bank v Rosset
         4. Shift in law towards taking wider view of contributions
            1. Stack v Dowden
            2. Payment of households expenses can be included if substantial and pursuant to agreement
            3. Le Foe v Le Foe
            4. supported by Abbot v Abbot
   3. Quantifying shares
      1. Won't use a mathematical calculation based on proportion to purchase price.
         1. Instead will look at whole course of dealings
            1. Midland Bank v Cooke
      2. Will instead survey course of dealings to determine what was intended
         1. Stack v Dowden
            1. Starting point is what was agreed at time of purchase
            2. If no evidence. Will consider whole course of dealings
            3. E.g. advice and discussion
            4. Nature of relationship
            5. Purchase of house
         2. If not possible to ascertain shares intended by direct evidence or by inference
            1. Each party will be entitled to share which courts consider fair with regard to whole course of dealings
            2. Jones v Kernott
2. Proprietary estoppel
   1. Pascoe v Turner
      1. Legal owner repeatedly told unmarried partner that house was hers
      2. Proprietary estoppel prevented him from denying his assurance as he allowed C to act as detriment
      3. Can be used as a cause of action
         1. Unlike other estoppels
   2. First stage
      1. Must establish whether proprietary estoppel gives rise to equity
         1. Legal owner must behave in such a way that C believes they have, or will have, some rights in relation to the property
            1. Can be active assurance
            2. Pascoe v Turner
            3. Or Passive
            4. Inwards v Baker
            5. Stood back and let C act to his detriment believing he would be entitled to an interest
            6. Thornton v Major
            7. Sufficient for person invoking estoppel to establish that he understood an action to be an asusrance on which he could rely
            8. Gillet v Holt
            9. repeatedly told he would inherit estate
         2. and C acts to his detriment on belief
            1. Causal connection between detriment done and assurance made
            2. Doesn't need to be sole reason but must be a reason
            3. Can be financial
            4. Gillet v Holt
            5. Improving legal owner's land
            6. Inwards v Baker
            7. Looking after relative
            8. Re Basham
            9. Can be detriment if well beyond normal family moral duties
         3. Must be unconscionable for legal owner to insist on strict legal ownership
            1. Gillet v Holt
            2. Worked for farmer for 40 years for little pay, and incurred expenditure on farm house
            3. Courts should look at whether it is unconscionable to deny C what was promise
   3. Second stage
      1. Must choose which remedy will satisfy the equity
         1. Should be the minimum to satisfy remedy
            1. Fact dependent
         2. Jennings v Rice
            1. If C and D have reached mutual bargain
            2. Courts may well fulfill expectation
            3. If C's expectations are uncertain or not focused on specific property, or don't reflect D's assurance or bear no relation to amount of detriment
            4. Courts will take C's expectation as starting point
            5. Will factor in:
            6. extent of detrimental reliance
            7. unconscionability. e.g misconduct by either party
            8. any alteration to D's finances
            9. Financial obligation owed to D by others
            10. Effect of taxation
            11. Any benefits C has derived from situation
            12. Whether proposed remedy is practical
            13. Proportionality
         3. Joyce v Epsom and Ewell
            1. Focus on what is fair and proportionate between parties
         4. Examples
            1. Pasoce v Turner
            2. transfer of freehold to C who expected home for life
            3. Gillet v Holt
            4. order transfer of farm to fulfil H's assurances
            5. Jennings v Rice
            6. Compensation valued at detriment of providing full-time care
            7. Interest in property can be awarded
            8. Long lease terminable on C's death
            9. Southwell v Blackburn
            10. Fixed sum to reflect detriment
3. Resulting Trusts
   1. Voluntary transfer and purchasemoney cases
      1. Overview
         1. A makes voluntary transfer to B
         2. OR pays for property vested in B's name
         3. Presumption of resulting trust
            1. Can be rebutted
         4. Presumption of advancement in certain family relations
            1. Can be rebutted
      2. Presumption of resulting trust
         1. Voluntary transfer
            1. Thavorn v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
            2. Rebuttable
            3. Only applied in absence of evidence.
            4. Doesn't apply to transfer of land
            5. S60(3) LPA 1925
         2. In absence of consideration and intention, transfer from X to Y will = resulting trust
         3. Purchase money
            1. Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams
            2. Wife paid for lottery ticket
            3. No intention of gift
            4. Husband's share held on trust for wife
            5. Parrot v Parkin
            6. X contributed 55% of price of yacht
            7. Y held share on trust for X
            8. Family Home
            9. Resulting trust in proportion to payments
            10. Payment must be made at time of initial purchase
            11. Curley v Parkes
            12. Mortgage payments didn't count
            13. Nor will legal or mover fees
            14. May find a constructive trust as alternative
            15. Stack v Dowden
            16. Resulting trust can be found if bought as investment
            17. Laskar v Laskar
      3. Presumption of advancement
         1. Person making transfer is under an obligation to provide for other. Will be presumed to be a gift
         2. Father to child
            1. Bennet v Bennet
         3. including in loco parentis
            1. Bennet v Bennet
         4. Husband makes voluntary transfer to wife
            1. Pettit v Pettit
         5. Can include mother child in 'certain circumstances'
            1. Sekhon v Alissa
         6. Easily rebuttable
            1. McGrath v Wallis
            2. Being in son's name was a technicality
            3. Marshal v Crutwell
            4. Convenience, not a gift
            5. Warren v Gurney
            6. Evidence found that son-in law was to repay the cost
      4. Rebuttal
         1. Evidence of contrary intention will rebut
            1. Loosemore v Mcdonnel
            2. Clear evidence of a gift
            3. If loan intended. Evidence needed
         2. Only acts done and statements made at time of transaction
            1. Shephard v Cartwright
      5. Effect
         1. Size of equitable interest reflects proportion of purchase price contributed
   2. Incomplete disposal of equitable interest
      1. Settlor transfers property to trustees on trust
         1. Doesn't dispose of equitable interest
            1. Occurs if trust is void
            2. Vandervell v IRC
            3. Didn't satisfy S53(1)(C)
            4. Or doesn't exhast trust fund
            5. Examples
            6. Gap in beneficial ownership- e.g. no vested interest at a period in time
            7. Lack of certainty of object
            8. Doesn't define beneficial interest
            9. Offends rule against perpetuity
            10. Offends beneficiary principle
      2. Trustee will hold property on a resulting trust for settlor
4. Express trust?
   1. Declaration of trust evidenced in signed writing
      1. S52(1)(b) LPA 1925