LAND LAW

Land Law



Land Law

This case of Helen gives rise to a resulting trust. Resulting trust (from the Latin 'resultare' meaning 'to jump back') is the creation of an implied trust by operation of law, as where property gets transferred to one who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" back to the transferor (implied settlor). In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also its settlor can be called a resulting trust. In common law, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts. Some jurisdictions may establish a rebuttable presumption of gift for property transfers between relatives. Said presumption may operate as an affirmative defense to a petition to establish a resulting trust implied by operation of law(Penner 2001 Pp.34).

The law presumes that it is legitimate to transfer property to a family member, particularly for a relative's support. But an unrelated transferee who receives substantial value without consideration is ordinarily presumed to hold the property in trust for benefit of the transferor. The rebuttable presumption of gift affects transfers between siblings, uncles, aunts, children, and grandchildren.

A notable exception to the presumption of gift is for property transfers between husband and wife (transmutations). The marital exception to presumption of gift arises from the fiduciary duty that spouses owe to one another. Spouses have a special trusted relationship that imputes an obgligation of utmost good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, spouses are deemed incapable of transmutation except under specified circumstances, such as when making an Express Declaration of transmutation as by clear statement in a deed or other writing of substantial dignity.

For Helen to claim any rights in the house by way of implied trust, or trust which is founded in an unexpressed but presumable intention there is no need to show a pre-existing proprietary right and co-ownership is implied. An implied trust arises by the operation of the law and in this case would be imposed on George which would require him to hold it in part for the benefit of Helen. The circumstances of Helen were considered as a resulting trust in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council whereby Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that "where A makes a voluntary payment to B or pays for the purchase of the property which is vested either in B alone" there is an assumption that the money Helen paid was not intended to be a gift therefore the property is held on trust for Helen or George and Helen hold the house in shares "proportionate to their contributions". Although the house was bought by George, Helen made ...