* not completed

. The best way for an unmarried, cohabiting couple to protect their respective claims to their shared home is to…

Live together for ten years correct incorrect

Make a written declaration of trust correct incorrect

Make equal financial contributions correct incorrect

Put the legal estate in joint names correct incorrect

* not completed

. A person may claim an equitable interest in a property under a resulting trust if…

Both parties have agreed that they have a share correct incorrect

The claimant has acted to their detriment correct incorrect

The claimant has made a financial contribution towards the purchase of the property correct incorrect

It would be unconscionable to deny their claim correct incorrect

* not completed

. If a claimant is successful in claiming an equitable share in a house under a proprietary estoppel, the size of that share is…

The minimum equity to do justice correct incorrect

What was promised correct incorrect

Determined by the whole course of dealing between the couple in relation to the property. correct incorrect

Whatever is fair correct incorrect

* not completed

. There are two categories of trust in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset 1991 1 AC 107. The first category is based upon an oral agreement between the parties and one of the parties relying on that agreement and acting to their detriment. The oral agreement…

Must precisely define what the parties have agreed correct incorrect

Can be inferred from the conduct of the parties in sharing the house correct incorrect

Can be made at any time correct incorrect

Must be based on evidence of an express discussion correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following would not qualify as detrimental reliance?

Housekeeping and looking after children correct incorrect

A man carrying out extensive building work on the house correct incorrect

A woman carrying out extensive building work on the house correct incorrect

Moving to another country and giving up secure accommodation correct incorrect

* not completed

. The second category of trust in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset 1991 1 AC 107 applies where no oral agreement to share can be found. Instead the claimant must show that they made a financial contribution. Which of the following would not qualify as a financial contribution?

Payment of a deposit correct incorrect

Payment of household bills correct incorrect

Direct payment of part of the purchase price correct incorrect

Payment of mortgage instalments correct incorrect

* not completed

. When the court decides the size of the couple's respective shares what is the most important and determining factor?

Whether the couple have agreed the size of their shares correct incorrect

The respective size of their financial contributions correct incorrect

Equality is equity correct incorrect

The whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property correct incorrect

* not completed

. The presumption in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 All ER 929 is that if the couple are joint tenants in law, they will also be joint tenants in equity. However, the court awarded 65% of the value of the house to Ms Dowden and 35% to Mr Stack. Why?

Because the main earner was a woman correct incorrect

Because Ms Dowden needed to maintain a home for her four children correct incorrect

Because they kept their financial affairs rigidly separate correct incorrect

Because Mr Stack only paid part of the mortgage correct incorrect

* not completed

. The majority of judges in Stack v Dowden 2007 2 All ER 929 held that the trust in this area of the law was a constructive trust, but Lord Neuberger thought it was a resulting trust. If it had been a resulting trust, what difference would this have made to outcome of the case?

No difference correct incorrect

The shares would have been equal correct incorrect

Ms Dowden would have received a larger share correct incorrect

Mr Stack would have received a larger share correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776 the Supreme Court decided that it was possible, in some circumstances, to impute a common intention. What does this mean?

The court looks at what the couple has orally agreed. correct incorrect

The court should assume that the couple held the property in equal shares, unless the contrary was proved correct incorrect

The court looks at the evidence to decide the couple's common intention. correct incorrect

The court decides what the couple would have intended if they had thought about it and awards fair shares. correct incorrect