Home / Summaries / WS4 Co-ownership / purchase-price-trust

Implied Co-ownership - Resulting Trusts

Q: How does the case of Bull v Bull support the presumption of resulting trust as a result of contribution towards the purchase price?

In Bull v Bull the claimant bought a house with his mother but the claimant was the sole legal owner. He contributed the most to the purchase price. A resulting trust was presumed as the mother contributed towards the purchase price. Therefore, she was presumed to own the property as a TiC in proportion to the size of her contribution.

Q: Give examples of contributions that are not direct cash contributions but are sufficient to give rise to a resulting trust mentioned in Curley v Parkes ?

In Curley v Parkes , a contribution towards all or part of the purchase price was sufficient. However, payment of legal fees or other ancillary expenses would not suffice. On the facts, the cohabitee contributed nothing towards the purchase price but held a joint account where the mortgage payments were paid. It was held that an intention of a resulting trust arises at the date on which the property is purchased. Here, the later mortgage payments would not suffice as part of the purchase price as it was already paid for.

3 important questions on Implied Co-ownership - Resulting Trusts

When does the law presume a resulting trust and what happens to non-legal owners shares in the property?

The law presumes a resulting trust when both parties contribute to the purchase price, not as a gift or a loan, but the legal estate is transferred to only one of them. Both parties are presumed to own as TiC in proportion to the size of their contributions.

How does the case of Bull v Bull support the presumption of resulting trust as a result of contribution towards the purchase price?

In Bull v Bull the claimant bought a house with his mother but the claimant was the sole legal owner. He contributed the most to the purchase price. A resulting trust was presumed as the mother contributed towards the purchase price. Therefore, she was presumed to own the property as a TiC in proportion to the size of her contribution.

Give examples of contributions that are not direct cash contributions but are sufficient to give rise to a resulting trust mentioned in Curley v Parkes?

In Curley v Parkes, a contribution towards all or part of the purchase price was sufficient. However, payment of legal fees or other ancillary expenses would not suffice. On the facts, the cohabitee contributed nothing towards the purchase price but held a joint account where the mortgage payments were paid. It was held that an intention of a resulting trust arises at the date on which the property is purchased. Here, the later mortgage payments would not suffice as part of the purchase price as it was already paid for.