Chapter 6 Multiple Choice questions

. According to section 53(1)(b) of the LPA 1925, a declaration of trust over land must be manifested and proved by writing and signed by the person declaring the trust (or a testator in a will). Yet this requirement does not apply to all trusts. To which trusts does this section not apply? Select one of the following.

To express trusts of land

To resulting trusts of land

To constructive trusts of land

To implied trusts of land (resulting and constructive trusts)

To all forms of trust involving land in whatever circumstances they are generated

. In what circumstances will a 'purchase money' resulting trust arise? Which of the following statements correctly reflects the current law?

The 'purchase money' resulting trust arises where all parties to the purchase of property make equal financial contributions to that purchase.

The 'purchase money' resulting trust arises where there is an agreement between the parties to the purchase of property that it would be unconscionable for a party to make a contribution to the purchase price and not receive an equitable interest in the property.

The 'purchase money' resulting trust arises where one party makes a contribution to the purchase price of property but that contributor's name is not on the legal title.

The 'purchase money' resulting trust arises where one party makes a contribution to the purchase price of property but that contribution is tainted by fraud.

. The presumption of 'purchase money resulting trust' is a rebuttable one. One way of rebutting the presumption is by demonstrating that the contribution to the purchase price was made by way of a gift is under what is known as the 'presumption of advancement.' In which one of the following relationships does the presumption of advancement not operate?

Between father and child

Between mother and child

Between husband and wife

Between a person in loco parentis and child

. Which decision of the court is the leading case on the role and relevance of illegality or illegal motives in establishing the existence of an implied trust? Select one of the following.

Stack v Dowden (2007)

Tinsley v Milligan (1994)

Laskar v Laskar (2008)

Jones v Kernott (2011)

. How far did the judgment in Tribe v Tribe (1995) modify the approach taken in Tinsley v Milligan (1994) as to the illegality principle? Select one of the following.

Tribe established an exception to Tinsley that a person is able to rely on evidence of illegality or illegal purpose in cases involving the transfer of shares.

Tribe established an exception to Tinsley that a person is able to rely on evidence of illegality or illegal purpose where the relationship between the parties is familial.

Tribe overruled Tinsley such that a person is now able to rely on evidence of illegality or illegal purpose in order to establish the existence of an implied trust.

Tribe established an exception to Tinsley that a person is able to rely on evidence of illegality or illegal purpose in order to rebut a presumption of advancement provided that illegality/purpose has not been carried into effect.

. By far the more important implied trust in the family home context is the common intention constructive trust, but when will it arise and how does it operate? Which of the following statements correctly states the current law as to joint legal ownership cases in the domestic context following Stack and Jones?

In joint legal ownership cases, the starting point is of a tenancy in common in equity - that each party enjoys an interest in the home commensurate with their contribution to the purchase price.

In joint legal ownership cases, the starting point is that a 'purchase money resulting trust' arises.

In joint legal ownership cases, the starting point is the presumption of sharing in equity, i.e. the presumption of an equitable joint tenancy. This is a strong presumption which will not be easily rebutted.

In joint legal ownership cases, the starting point is the presumption of sharing in equity, i.e. the presumption of an equitable joint tenancy. This is a weak presumption which will be easily rebutted by contrary evidence.

. In determining whether the presumption of an equitable joint tenancy in joint legal ownership cases in the domestic context has been rebutted, Baroness Hale in Stack pointed to a series of factors that would be relevant. In which paragraph of the judgment did she list these factors?

Paragraph 9

Paragraph 69

Paragraph 96

Paragraph 106

. According to Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1991), in sole ownership cases in the domestic context, how is a common intention constructive trust established?

A common intention constructive trust arises in sole ownership cases where it would be unconscionable not to recognise the existence of a trust in all the circumstances.

A common intention constructive trust arises in sole ownership cases according to the same principles as established in the context of joint ownership cases.

A common intention constructive trust arises in sole ownership cases where there is either an express bargain, arrangement or understanding that a home is to be shared, or an inferred bargain to this effect evidenced by contribution to the purchase price or post-purchase mortgage payments.

A common intention constructive trust arises in sole ownership cases where a party has contributed to the overall running of the home, home economy, or offered other non-financial, domestic support.

. According to the stated judgment of the court in the cases of Eves v Eves (1975); Grant v Edwards (1986); Hammond v Mitchell (1992), on what basis was a common intention constructive trust found to have been established?

The court expressed significant sympathy for the women in these three cases and so explicitly bent the rules of constructive trust to enable a remedy.

A common intention constructive trust was held to arise through public policy.

The court created a new remedy of 'constructive trust by excuse' which arises where an excuse has been proffered by one party to another as to why only one named party appeared as legal owner on the title.

The court accepted that where one party had given an excuse as to why only one name appeared as legal owner on the title, this was enough to establish an express agreement to share in equity.

. When it comes to the quantification of the shares in the family home, the court in Stack and Jones confirmed the relevant principles that apply in joint and sole ownership cases. Which one of the following statements is incorrect in the court's 'broad brush' and 'holistic approach' to quantification?

In joint ownership cases, the starting point is a presumption of 50-50 shares but this can be rebutted by evidence of a common intention to share differently in equity.

In sole ownership cases, the court begins by looking for an express common intention as to the size of each party's respective share. Where there is such evidence, the court will give effect to this intention.

In both joint and sole cases, where there is no evidence of express or actual common intention as to shares, the court can infer a common intention as to shares from the conduct and words of the parties judged objectively.

In both joint and sole cases, the court, having regard to all the circumstances, can impute a common intention to share the property in equity and the size of each party's respective share.

Only where there is no actual common intention and no possibility of inferring an intention as to the size of the shares, the court can proceed to impute an intention awarding such share as is considered 'fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property.'

Chapter 6 Multiple Choice questions

Quiz Content