All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Chancery Division; Peter Smith J; 27 April 2007)
The cohabitants had purchased three properties together. In respect of two of the properties there were declarations of trust, albeit altered by a subsequent arrangement; the third property was held in the woman's sole name, although the man had contributed to the purchase price, and there was no declaration of trust. After the death of the woman, her administrator brought proceedings against the man.
The judge made certain findings as to the couple's respective interests in each of the three properties. In relation to the third property he held that a resulting trust had been established; lies told by the man in his financial statement in divorce proceedings to the effect that he had no interest in the property were not sufficient to rebut the presumption that he had acquired a share in the property at the time of its acquisition by virtue of his contribution to the purchase price. The man could establish his beneficial interest without needing to explain why the property had been transferred into the sole name of the woman.
Get a FREE trial today! The fastest way to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary,...