Constructive Trust Finale Exam Structure PDF

Preview

Summary

Constructive Trust Finale Exam Structure step by step to exam. Follow for HD mark....

Description

Constructive Trust Exam Structure Muschinski V Dodds (1985) (commercial relationship) key elements 1) Joint relationship or endeavour Where both parties have made contributions, which are linked directly or indirectly to the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of the property subject of the dispute matter, intending for the benefit of the contributions to be for the mutual enjoyment of the parties. Those contributions must not have been put towards maintaining the party’s personal relationships such as the provision of love, care and support. 2) Termination of the joint relationship or endeavour a change of circumstances which prevent the mutual enjoyment of the property. These circumstances were not forceable when the relevant contribution was made. Bankruptcy clear exam; death not so clear of an example. 3) Without attributable blame There has to be a deterioration; for example, sharing of a dwelling that makes it uncomfortable for all person involve, or going bankrupt; in most instances you cant blame someone for going bankrupt. The rule is understood as preventing the party claiming an interest where their blameworthy conduct secured the termination of the joint endeavour. 4) Unconscionability Mention element 4 in the exam but don’t have to elaborate on it. Muschinski V Dodds (1985) Conclusion Muschinski 97% and Mr Dodds 3% effectively 50% each. Miss Muschinski was deemed to have voluntarily given Mr Dodds the extra tittle he hadn’t paid for thus Mr Dodds could not benefit from the remedies of a resulting trust. However, when their relationship broke down, crumble under the yok of unsuspicious star, Mr Dodds asserted his full legal entitlement to his joint tenancy and the high court said in that situation it was unconscionable for him to do that. There was a joint relationship or endeavour, which was terminated without attributable blame and his assertion to that full legal tegal title was unconscionable. The order was that the property will be sold, and Miss Muschinski will get her 97% whilst Mr Dodds his 3% contribution. (The high court held that there was no reason to split the extra capital accumulated in the property value at 50%)

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) ( De Facto relationship) Legal title was 100% to the Man. Legal title and contribution have to mirror each so there is no question of a resulting trust. It is a purely personal venture – no element of a commercial venture permitting direct application of Muschinski and Dodds. High court ruled: The pooled resources were designed to be used and were in fact used for the purpose of their joint relationship and for mutual security and benefit. At least to the extent of securing accommodation for them and their child was enough to constitute a joint endeveour. Lead authority. The approach taken by Deane J in Munschinski was adopted by the majority of judges in Baumagartner. Answer approach (write This) On the basis of Muschinski V Dodds the contributions to a joint relationship made for the purpose of the parties’ mutual securities and benefit, at least to the to extent of securing accommodation for the parties, cannot be sacrificed to the formal legal interests in the property that provides that mutual security and benefits. In Kind contribution (women in relation contributing to property Not financially) Equity favours equality … where parties have lived together for years and pooled their resources to creates a joint home, they should share beneficial ownership equally as tenant in common, subject to adjustment to avoid injustice, to take account or disparity between worth of contributions, financial or in kind. Parij V Parij (1987) Supreme Court of South Australia acknowledge in kind contribution. The Contribution that a woman makes in king (non-financial) the ongoing maintenance of a relationship aren’t to be taken trivially. The in-kind contribution is relevant because there are made in relation to the property in dispute. If the property in dispute was an investment property or they n ever lived in that might be a point of distinction preventing the in-kind contribution. Bryson V Bryant (1992) court refuse to acknowledge in Kind Contribution. Legislative Intervention- Family Law Act 1975 (cth); Domestic Partner Property Act 1996(SA). Statutory intervention limited Statutory won’t apply to death of party or insolvency of party hence need to consider equitable principles. When a third-party interest is involved: Person V McBain (2001)

Tutorial Scenario Connie and Donna Plant Nursery

Connie (the mum) and Donna (the daughter) love plants. They seize on a business opportunity that would also provide them with a place to live. They buy a house and plant nursery costing a total of $500,000. Donna contributed $45,000 cash and covered the $5000 in in stamp duties and other taxes. She also took out a $20,000 personal loan. Connie contributed $130,000 cash and took a mortgage of $300,000. They took legal title as tenants in common. They agree that Connie will: run the house, do the renovations; manage the business and see to all her mortgage repayments while Donna continues with her job as Professor of Botany at Flinders University. Donna would pay off her loan herself, as she was earning a salary. This plan enables them to save on salaries that the nursery pays staff: they retrench Amelia the nursery general manager and save $85,000 per year on the salary they would have paid her. Three years later, a drought takes its toll on their nursery business and their health. Donna dies leaving her entire estate to the Botanic Gardens. About $70,000 was paid off the mortgage and Donna had paid $10,000 off her loan.

•

The Director of the Botanic Gardens seeks advice as to the value of Donna’s estate.

RESULTING TRUST ANALYSIS ‘WORKSHEET’ (1) PARTY/NAME

Donna (daughter)

(2) $ CONTRIBUTION

(3) CONTRIBUTION AS %

$45000 $5000 $20000

700000/overall purchase price (500000)

(4) LEGAL TITLE THAT WAS OBTAINED (as %) 50

(5) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION (3) AND LEGAL TITLE (4) +36

(6) POSITION IN EQUITY?

=14 % = 70000 $130000 $300000

50

-36

=430000

430000/overall purchase price (500000). = 86 %

5000000

100

100

0 (unequal contribution).

Connie

Total

Legal title doesn’t mirror contribution.



What contribution do we take into account: contribution directly referring to the acquisition of the property? Contribution has to be at the time or directly after the acquisition of the property (Calvery V Green).



What legal title was obtained: Doesn’t say in the fact but we will assume 50/50.



Legal title doesn’t mirror contribution; therefore, we have a presumption of a resulting trust unless rebutted.

Resulting trust: People are selfish; not benevolent. People will intend to want to keep their title. Connie did not intent to give that 36% to her daughter.

Rebutted



Contrary intention: nothing explicit in the fact.



Presumption of advancement: yes; Gift from mother to daughter. Natural obligation to provide support (Nelson V Nelson; Scott V Pauly, March V March). The law will presume Mother Connie did intent to give that extra title to daughter Connie.



Cummins V Cummins: Does not apply



Mini conclusion: resulting trust is rebutted because of the existence of the presumption of advancement. Legal Tittle = Equitable Title . Donna = 50% tenant in Common Connie = 50% tenant in common.

Constructive Trust Analysis

Donna Financial Contribution: 10,000. Donna in kind contribution Nothing.

Connie financial contribution: see to own mortgage repayment :$70,000. Manage business (85000x3) =255000.

Connie in kind contribution: Run the house, do renovation

Gross disproportion between Donna financial and in-kind contribution V Connie in kind and financial contribution.

Parij V Parij (1987) Supreme Court of South Australia acknowledge in kind contribution not to be treated trivally, this principle can be extended and is applicable to this case. . Unconscionable assertion of tittle to donna. Muschinski V Dodd’s elements Joint endeaveour ; Yes business (Muschinski V Dodds) + accommodation ( Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987)). Failure: yes; drought led to Donna death. Unconscionability: perhaps. Conclusion: There is evidence of gross disproportion; thus in equity, a court may make an adjustment to the respective legal interest of donna and Connie and adjust Connie interest up and make a corresponding adjustment down to Connie estate....