What was held in Stack v Dowden?

The House of Lords held that Ms Dowden owned a greater share than half the equity, and so although she and Mr Stack were joint tenants of the legal estate, Ms Dowden was entitled to a 65 per cent interest.

What is the presumption in Stack v Dowden?

The crux of the decision is that, since the starting point in joint names cases is joint beneficial ownership, the presumption is that the equitable interests of the legal co-owners are identical.

What is constructive trust land law?

Constructive trusts are trusts that may be implied in the absence of a declaration of trust, where the trustee has induced another to act to their detriment in the belief that if they do so act to their detriment they would acquire a beneficial interest in the land (Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 881 Case summary).

What is resulting trust in land law?

A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts.

Why is Dowden Stack important?

Stack v Dowden remains a leading case in the difficult area of cohabitants’ property rights, although just how much help it gives in determining those rights is a moot point – some commentators have even doubted whether it was “very unusual” at all.

What is a beneficial interest in property?

A beneficial interest is an interest in land that gives a person a financial share in a property and/or a right to occupy a property.

What is the purpose of a constructive trust?

A constructive trust is created to remedy (or make up for) a situation where there is “unjust enrichment.” If someone has possession of property (money, real estate, or other assets) that they should not have because they obtained it unfairly through fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty, this is unjust enrichment.

What is the difference between a resulting trust and a constructive trust?

A resulting trust is based upon the presumed intention that arises where a person provides funds for the purchase of property. A constructive trust is founded upon a common intention that can either be expressed or inferred but cannot be based upon an intention that the parties never in fact had.

How do you prove a resulting trust?

A resulting trust is only presumed and as such can be rebutted in the event that evidence can be provided to prove that the intentions of the parties were to gift the money. Examples include: Evidence the money was a gift such as a gifted deposit letter.

What are the two categories of resulting trusts?

These trusts come in two forms: automatic resulting trusts, and presumed resulting trusts. Automatic resulting trusts arise from a “gap” in the equitable title of property.

What is a common intention constructive trust?

A constructive trust is founded upon a common intention that can either be expressed or inferred but cannot be based upon an intention that the parties never in fact had. In a constructive trust, once a common intention has been found between the parties, they will now be entitled to the intended property.

What are beneficial interests in land?

What was the significance of Stack v Dowden?

In considering the first part of the question it is evident from the discussion of the academic literature and the case law that the significance of Stack v Dowden is that it places implied trusts of the home within a new footing in law.

How did Ms Dowden and Mr Stack buy the House?

Ms Dowden and Mr Stack were co-habitees. They purchased a house in their joint names but made no declaration as to entitlement of the beneficial interest in the property. The purchase price of £190,00 came from £129,000 of MS Dowden’s savings and sale of her previous property.

Who are the barristers in Stack v Dowden?

John Wilson barrister, 1 Hare Court’s detailed review of the Development of the Case law in Cohabitation Claims since Stack v Dowden. 1. This article is the first in a series of quarterly updates on the law of cohabitation.

Why was a 65 / 35 split in favour of Ms Dowden?

The court considered that as they had spent nearly 20 years living together in addition to having children but still retained separate finances outside of their relationship was sufficient to justify a 65/35 split in favour of Ms Dowden.