Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185Between 2011 and 2013, the claimant obtained multiple charging orders in respect of five properties registered in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Dua. The Duas occupied four of the properties as a single residence, known together as ‘Fulmer House’. The other was a separate property known as 49 Sudbury Avenue.
The Duas had purchased 49 Sudbury Avenue in 1987 and occupied it as their family home until 2004. The purchase had been funded by a mortgage and the Duas’ evidence was that Mr Dua alone had made the mortgage payments. In 1992/93 and 1995, there were two major extensions to 49 S...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web OnlyA house was purchased in the joint names of the defendant and his son, the claimant. At least part of the reason for the claimant’s inclusion was that it allowed the defendant to benefit from a mortgage needed to finance the purchase. The TR1 bore an ‘X’ in Box 11 which appeared next to the words ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant sought a declaration that the property was held as described by Box 11 and an order for sale. The defendant maintained in a number of witness statements that the ticking of Box 1...
Amy Harris analyses a case involving the consideration of a resulting trust, inheritance prospects and whether support from a third party could be inferred ‘The husband did not have a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home as it was subject to a resulting trust and therefore not a matrimonial resource available for distribution.’ In …
Continue reading "Financial provison: Behind the scenes"
This post is only available to members.
Divorce case Arif v Anwar and Rehan [2015] raises interesting points on beneficial ownership and also costs, as Penelope Reed QC and Nicholas Fairbank report ‘There are no winners when the overall assets are reduced so significantly by the legal costs that adequate provision for the parties is circumscribed.’ In Sofia Arif v Arif Anwar, …
Continue reading "Trusts And Divorce: Family divided"
This post is only available to members.
Mark Pawlowski considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Pankhania v Chandegra, which discusses whether express declarations of trust are conclusive The Law Commission endorsed the conclusive nature of the declaration of trust in the context of transfers of title to joint owners, stating that, ‘it is essential that courts strictly enforce declarations of trust …
Continue reading "Trusts And Property: Declarations of trust in the family home"
This post is only available to members.
Mark Pawlowski considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Pankhania v Chandegra, which discusses whether express declarations of trust are conclusive An express trust may only be challenged on specific grounds that permit rescission or rectification of the formal document. It is accepted as established law that, where the parties execute a trust expressly declaring …
Continue reading "Trusts And Property: Declarations of trust in the family home"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2013 #127Mrs Clarke was the daughter of Mrs Meadus and Mr R Meadus, who owned a property known as Bonavista as joint tenants. Mr Meadus died in March 1995. Mrs Clarke alleged that prior to his death Mr Meadus expressed that he wanted Bonavista to remain in the family after he and his wife were dead. They wanted Mrs Clarke to live with Mrs Meadus, at Bonavista, for the remainder of her life and she would have Bonavista on Mrs Meadus’s death. Mrs Meadus asked Mrs Clarke and her husband to move in, which they did in September 1995, after allegedly receiving repeated promises that Mrs Meadus would le...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2013 #126The claimant appealed from the decision of Judge Charles Harris QC to dismiss his claim seeking an order for sale of 7 Cossington Street, Leicester (the property) and the division of the sale proceeds in equal shares between him and the defendant. A declaration had been made by the judge that beneficial ownership of the property was vested solely in the defendant, despite the property having been conveyed into the joint names of the claimant and defendant. A simultaneous express declaration of trust had been made in the transfer declaring that the parties were to hold the property as ten...
Mark Pawlowski considers some potentially far-reaching implications arising from recent case law on ownership of the family home ‘In the case of a purchase in joint names, the presumption of joint ownership in law and equity prevailed in the absence of contrary intention at the time of purchase or following acquisition of the property.’The Supreme …
Continue reading "Beneficial Ownership: Fair shares"
This post is only available to members.
