W301 UNIT 10 Resulting trusts

W301 UNIT 10: Resulting trusts
Beneficial interest springs back to transferor or settlor
Incomplete disposal of beneficial interest
A transfers property to B on express trust, but trusts do not exhaust whole beneficial interest
E.g. if fails on certainty of objects
Vandervell v IRC [1967]
Failed to specify beneficiary for option to buy shares
Money must be contributed on trust initially
Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958]
Surplus left for worthy causes
Failed as not charitable
Surplus held on resulting trust for donors
Re West Sussex Constabulary's Benevolent Fund [1970]
Did not follow Gillingham
Unincorporated assoc'n dissolved
Non-charitable purpose
Members subs
Contractual - no resulting trust
Proceeds of entertainment
Contractual - no resulting trust
Anonymous contributions
No resulting trust
Identifiable donations
Held on resulting trust
Surplus funds were bona vacantia
Should surplus funds have gone to members?
Re Bucks Constabulary Fund Friendly Society No 2 [1979]
Surplus funds on dissolution of unincorp assoc
Follow assoc rules if there are any
Or divide between current members
Except in rare cases where donation deemed to be trust
Hanchett-Stamford v AG [2008]
Gifts to non-charitable assocs normally construed as gifts to members
Trust fails to dispose of entire beneficial interest
Re the Trusts of the Abbott Fund [1900]
Fund for maintenance of two old ladies
Surplus held on resulting trust for donors
Re Andrew's Trust [1905]
Fund for education of children
Surplus belonged to children
Intention was to benefit the children
Settlor's intention relevant?
Controversial point
Presumed intention?
Or automatic?
Vandervell
Quistclose?
Money transferred to Rolls Razor to pay dividend
View one:
Express trust to pay dividends failed, leading to resulting trust
View two:
Was a resulting trust all along, with a mandate to pay dividend
Voluntary transfer and purchase money cases
Overview
A makes voluntary transfer to B
Or pays for property vested in B's name
Presumption of resulting trust
Can be rebutted
Presumption of advancement in certain family relations
Not since Equality Act 2010
Can be rebutted
Presumption of resulting trust
Voluntary transfer
Rebuttable by evidence of intention
Does not apply to transfer of land
s60c LPA 1925
Purchase money
Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams (1999)
Wife paid for lottery ticket
Husband's share held on trust for wife
Parrott v Parkin [2007]
X contributed 55% of price of yacht
Y held share on trust for X
Family home
Resulting trust in proportion to payments
Must be made at time of acquisition
Curley v Parkes [2004]
Constructive trusts could be alternative
Transfer deed will be conclusive if specifies shares
If not, presumption of equal shares
Stack v Dowden [2007]
Unless bought as investment
Laskar v Laskar [2008]
Presumption of advancement
Father to child
unless over 18
Laskar v Laskar
including in loco parentis
Weak and easily rebutted
McGrath v Wallis
Husband to wife
NOT wife to husband
Weak and easily rebutted
Pettit v Pettit
Fiance to fiancee
NOT unmarried partners
Possibly mother to child
Abolished by s199 Equality Act 2010
Rebuttal
Evidence of contrary intention will rebut
Only acts done and statements made at the time of the transaction
Subsequent declarations only admissable against the person who made them
Shephard v Cartright [1955]
Illegality
Eg to evade tax or creditors
Tinsley v Milligan [1994]
Presumption of resulting trust
House in T's name as M claiming benefits
Resulting trust in M's favour
M did not need to refer to illegality to make her case
Tribe v Tribe [1996]
Presumption of advancement
Father transferred shares to son to deceive creditors
Illegal purpose never carried into effect
Resulting trust in favour of father
If third party deceived, would not apply
Law Commission draft bill
Court would have discretion to refuse trust
7