Land law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Land law - Essay Example15,000 for the purpose of them being a mansion together and Mr Winston used this sum to purchase the property along with a mortgage in his touch on name. There doesnt appear to be any express valid trust regarding vault Kaurs contribution however drop off will most likely have a proprietary veracious in equity under resulting trust3. Resulting trusts usually involve contribution to the initial cost of the family home, which is registered solely in the name of another person4. Equity does not presume an outright gift, but rather a arrogance that the contributing party intended to retain a beneficial interest in the property5 (despite no manifest of unfeigned intention). Whilst this nestle has been criticised theoretically as the imposition of an artificial presumption6, it is arguably a necessary approach to protect third party interests7. On this basis, daughter Kaur may be able to claim an trustworthy interest in the home under resulting trust and on this basis Mr Winston will have held the Property as sole trustee with there being two co-owners in equity8. As the Property was held in trust and there is only one trustee of the land and two co-owners, Ms Winston will not be able to rely on the doctrine of overreaching to negate Miss Kaurs interest9. Moreover, as Miss Kaur has an true interest on grounds of resulting trust, fraction 3310 of the LRA provides that trusts are not registerable as notices on the register and therefore Miss Kaurs interest will not have been registered. Furthermore, the effect of Section 26 of the LRA is that purchasers are entitled to proceed, in the absence of such an entry on the register on the basis that there are no limitations on the owners powers11. As Miss Kaur has an equitable interest in the Property under the trust, her interest will only be binding on third parties if it constitutes an overriding interest12. Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the LRA protects overriding interests of those with rights to the property that are in actual occupation13. However, in the current scenario, Miss Kaur was away for over a year and did not live in the property. Accordingly, Miss Kaur will not be able to establish an overriding interest by merit of actual occupation. Therefore, on this basis Ms Winston will hold the Property on trust for Miss Kaur and any proceeds of any potential sale will be held on trust for Miss Kaur in proportion to her contributing share to the purchase price14. 3 Miss doubting Thomas With regard to Miss Thomas, she did not contribute to the purchase price however she undertook significant renovations and modernisation to the kitchen and gave up her local lodgment authority home to live in the Property on the basis of Mr Winstons representations. Therefore, Miss Thomas may have an equitable proprietary interest under common intention constructive trust15. The confidential information pillowcase of Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset16 highlighted the essential require ments for the imposition of a constructive trust asserting its establishment in the common intention of the parties to share the properties. Lord Bridge further asserted in this case that intention could be express or inferred from conduct17. Furthermore, Lord Bridge in highlighting the reasoning in Gissing v Gissing18 asserted the concept of