1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,700
Presumptive. 
Resulting trusts these are 

2
00:00:02,700 --> 00:00:06,100
transfers made by a to be where 
the law creates a rebuttable. 

3
00:00:06,100 --> 00:00:07,800
Presumption of a resulting 
trust. 

4
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:11,300
Applying at the intention is not
made clear by a written 

5
00:00:11,300 --> 00:00:14,300
evidence. 
Produced, for example, when a 

6
00:00:14,300 --> 00:00:17,400
transfers property to be, unless
the transfer was made by 

7
00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:20,800
fathered a child, or by husband 
to wife in the absence of any 

8
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:23,700
other evidence, the law presumes
that a resulting trust has been 

9
00:00:23,700 --> 00:00:27,000
created. 
For a why this category excluded

10
00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:30,700
for example, a evidence cannot 
stand in course of Testimony and

11
00:00:30,700 --> 00:00:34,600
remains here, say a will not get
the property of H and W in F and

12
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:37,000
C can adduce evidence. 
It is their property and 

13
00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:40,600
resulting trust will not arise 
the main categories of fact 

14
00:00:40,600 --> 00:00:43,400
situations giving rise to a 
presumption of a resulting 

15
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:45,500
trust. 
Our we're makes a voluntary 

16
00:00:45,500 --> 00:00:48,700
conveyance of property to be 
where a has made a monetary 

17
00:00:48,700 --> 00:00:52,100
contribution to the purchase of 
property for be from these 

18
00:00:52,100 --> 00:00:53,700
cases. 
It can be stated that were there

19
00:00:53,700 --> 00:00:56,900
is a voluntary transfer of 
property, the law presumes, the 

20
00:00:56,900 --> 00:00:59,700
recipient holds that property on
resulting Trust. 

21
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:03,200
The property is transferred back
to the original owner, unless 

22
00:01:03,200 --> 00:01:05,600
the recipient can show gift was 
intended. 

23
00:01:05,900 --> 00:01:09,700
The presumptions are however, 
easily rebutted, in fact fee, 

24
00:01:09,700 --> 00:01:13,000
Pasco evidence was shown that a 
woman had purchased stock in the

25
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:15,700
names of herself and her 
grandson evidence by the 

26
00:01:15,700 --> 00:01:18,500
grandson and granddaughter in 
law that this had been done as a

27
00:01:18,500 --> 00:01:21,300
gift was admissible. 
On the other hand, the 

28
00:01:21,300 --> 00:01:24,000
presumption is solely concerned 
with evidence of an intent. 

29
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,100
To create a trust ulterior 
motives, to create a trust are 

30
00:01:27,100 --> 00:01:29,800
not taken into account, 
intensely V. 

31
00:01:29,900 --> 00:01:32,700
Logan a woman transferred 
property to her business partner

32
00:01:32,700 --> 00:01:35,300
and Trust in order to 
fraudulently claimed Social 

33
00:01:35,300 --> 00:01:37,600
Security payments. 
It was held that this did not 

34
00:01:37,608 --> 00:01:39,900
defeat the presumption of a 
resulting trust. 

35
00:01:39,900 --> 00:01:43,300
The fact that is being proved by
the presumption of a resulting 

36
00:01:43,300 --> 00:01:46,000
trust is the intention to create
a trust for the settler. 

37
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:49,900
This view of Presumed resulting 
trust has been endorsed by Lord 

38
00:01:49,900 --> 00:01:52,800
Browne Wilkinson and West which 
landy's Banker oesn't. 

39
00:01:52,800 --> 00:01:56,600
Ravi isn't in LBC. 
The presumption of resulting 

40
00:01:56,600 --> 00:01:59,900
trust is rebutted by evidence of
any intention inconsistent. 

41
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,300
Such a trust. 
Not only by evidence of an 

42
00:02:02,300 --> 00:02:05,200
intention to make a gift. 
Some have argued that this 

43
00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:08,100
presumption arises as a result 
of a lack of intention to 

44
00:02:08,100 --> 00:02:10,300
transfer any beneficial 
interest. 

45
00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:14,000
This view has generally not 
received judicial endorsement 

46
00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:18,000
voluntary transfer of land. 
Despite the general onus of 

47
00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:20,900
resulting trust where it is very
much on the recipient to show 

48
00:02:20,900 --> 00:02:23,900
there is intention of a gift. 
This presumption does not apply.

49
00:02:23,900 --> 00:02:27,400
In the case of voluntary 
transfers of land, this is owing

50
00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:31,100
to the law of property act 1925.
Section 63. 

51
00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:34,500
Which states three in a 
voluntary conveyance, a 

52
00:02:34,500 --> 00:02:37,200
resulting trust for the grantor 
shall not be implied. 

53
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:39,700
Merely by reason that the 
property is not expressed to be 

54
00:02:39,700 --> 00:02:42,200
conveyed for the use or benefit 
of the grantee. 

55
00:02:42,600 --> 00:02:47,800
Despite that it was explained in
a levy con UK civil 974 of Aldo 

56
00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:50,900
LPA abolished, the presumption 
of a resulting trust from the 

57
00:02:50,900 --> 00:02:53,900
act of the transfer of land 
along it remained open to a 

58
00:02:53,908 --> 00:02:56,800
court to consider extrinsic 
evidence to establish that a 

59
00:02:56,808 --> 00:02:59,800
trusted. 
In fact arise automatic result. 

60
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:03,100
Trusts in these trust. 
There is no mention of any 

61
00:03:03,100 --> 00:03:06,600
expression of intention in any 
instrument or of any presumption

62
00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:09,600
of a resulting trust. 
The resulting trust takes effect

63
00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:12,600
by operation of law by law 
implied that property will 

64
00:03:12,600 --> 00:03:15,300
revert to you. 
And so appears to be automatic 

65
00:03:15,800 --> 00:03:18,700
/, Megara j.r. 
Evander, Val's, trusts number 

66
00:03:18,700 --> 00:03:22,600
two, automatic resulting. 
Trust can arise when the settler

67
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:25,500
tries to set up a trust for a 
third party, but there is an 

68
00:03:25,500 --> 00:03:29,200
initial failure for one of 
objects, for example, by naming.

69
00:03:29,900 --> 00:03:33,400
Aries, which cannot be defined 
as in Morrissey Bishop of Durham

70
00:03:33,600 --> 00:03:36,600
or when the objectives of the 
trust no longer become possible 

71
00:03:36,600 --> 00:03:38,500
or relevant. 
By the time of the transfer to 

72
00:03:38,500 --> 00:03:42,800
the trustee, as in re Gillingham
bus disaster, fund chapter 300, 

73
00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:46,300
some academic commentators 
suggested that the automatic 

74
00:03:46,300 --> 00:03:49,000
resulting trust will arise only 
where the property has been 

75
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:51,800
transferred to a trustee on an 
Express trust so that the 

76
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:54,900
trustee has legal title to the 
property that can then be held 

77
00:03:54,900 --> 00:03:58,300
on trust for the settler. 
However, it is uncertain whether

78
00:03:58,300 --> 00:04:01,600
this category resulting This can
be explained by the presumption 

79
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:03,500
of an intention to declare a 
trust. 

80
00:04:04,000 --> 00:04:06,400
The rationale for the 
recognition of the automatic 

81
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:08,900
resulting trust, where an 
Express trust has failed 

82
00:04:08,900 --> 00:04:11,400
remains. 
Controversial quiz closed trust 

83
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:15,200
in particular, twin sector VR 
the settlers intention and 

84
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:19,200
automatic resulting, trusts in 
relation to automatic, resulting

85
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:22,000
trusts there is some difference 
in expressing the nature of the 

86
00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:25,900
settlers, intention in West, 
which Lord Browne Wilkinson 

87
00:04:25,900 --> 00:04:29,100
stated that a resulting trust 
arises due to Illegal presumed 

88
00:04:29,100 --> 00:04:31,900
intention to Create a trust in 
favor of the settler. 

89
00:04:32,500 --> 00:04:35,200
It is also been suggested that 
it is the fact of a lack of 

90
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:37,600
intention of benefit. 
The recipient that creates the 

91
00:04:37,600 --> 00:04:40,000
trust. 
This could be referred to as the

92
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:42,800
chamber's model of intention 
that the settler intends to 

93
00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:46,100
retain The Beneficial interest 
in the property but transfers 

94
00:04:46,100 --> 00:04:50,000
the legal title to someone else.
For example, to let an active 

95
00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:53,700
child, manage the assets, the 
trust is implied by the settlers

96
00:04:53,700 --> 00:04:56,800
lack of intention to transfer 
any beneficial interest. 

97
00:04:57,500 --> 00:05:00,600
Although, in most cases, the 
outcome would be the It is 

98
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:03,300
highly significant to 
differentiate between a positive

99
00:05:03,300 --> 00:05:06,200
intention to retain beneficial 
interest and the lack of 

100
00:05:06,208 --> 00:05:08,300
intention of benefit. 
The transferee. 

101
00:05:08,700 --> 00:05:11,900
It is often difficult to prove 
intention but easier to prove 

102
00:05:11,900 --> 00:05:15,600
the circumstances when a legal 
presumption will arise, it may 

103
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:18,500
be more or less easy to rebut 
the presumption then to disprove

104
00:05:18,500 --> 00:05:21,800
an intention Lord Browne 
Wilkinson was afraid that this 

105
00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:25,000
would create a floodgates 
Problem by giving every claim in

106
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:26,000
a proprietary. 
Right? 

107
00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:30,000
In bankruptcy, making many more,
claimant secured creditors And 

108
00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:32,800
thus making the position of a 
secured creditor much less 

109
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,200
valuable. 
It is imperative to prove 

110
00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:38,200
intention because Equity will 
not assist a volunteer and is 

111
00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:42,200
suspicious of gifts except under
certain circumstances, such as a

112
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:46,300
parent and child or spouse 
constructive trust a 

113
00:05:46,308 --> 00:05:48,500
constructive. 
Trust is an equitable remedy, 

114
00:05:48,500 --> 00:05:51,400
imposed by a court to benefit a 
party that has been wrongfully 

115
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:54,400
deprived of its rights due to 
either a person obtaining or 

116
00:05:54,400 --> 00:05:57,300
holding a legal property, right?
Which they should not possess 

117
00:05:57,300 --> 00:06:00,600
due to an just enrichment or 
interference, Due to a breach of

118
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:04,400
fiduciary duty which is inter 
causative with unjust enrichment

119
00:06:04,400 --> 00:06:07,600
and or property interference, it
is a type of implied. 

120
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:11,200
Trust, for example, it is 
created by conduct not 

121
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:14,500
explicitly by a settler in the 
United States. 

122
00:06:14,500 --> 00:06:17,500
In contrast to England, a 
Constructor trust remedy, 

123
00:06:17,500 --> 00:06:21,100
generally does not recognize or 
create any continuing fiduciary 

124
00:06:21,100 --> 00:06:24,100
relationship. 
That is a constructive, trust is

125
00:06:24,100 --> 00:06:27,300
not actually a trust, except in 
name rather. 

126
00:06:27,500 --> 00:06:30,100
It is a fiction declaring that 
the plaintiff has equity Edible 

127
00:06:30,100 --> 00:06:33,200
title to the property at issue 
and ordering the defendant to 

128
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:36,200
transfer legal ownership and 
possession to the plaintiff. 

129
00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:39,900
For instance, in some states, 
the Slayer rule is implemented 

130
00:06:39,900 --> 00:06:42,900
in the form of a constructive. 
Trust definition. 

131
00:06:43,300 --> 00:06:46,300
Constructive trusts are imposed 
by operation of law. 

132
00:06:46,700 --> 00:06:49,200
They are also referred to as 
implied trusts. 

133
00:06:49,700 --> 00:06:52,200
They are not subject to 
formality requirements. 

134
00:06:52,700 --> 00:06:56,600
Unlike a resulting trust which 
also arises by operation of law.

135
00:06:56,600 --> 00:06:59,600
A constructive trust is not give
effect to the imputed or. 

136
00:06:59,900 --> 00:07:02,500
And intention of the parties 
instead. 

137
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:05,200
Constructive trusts are largely 
said to be triggered by 

138
00:07:05,200 --> 00:07:08,000
unconscionability. 
This is the idea that a 

139
00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:10,600
defendant would be unjustly 
enriched if they were allowed to

140
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,700
keep property for themselves. 
The main issue with this 

141
00:07:13,700 --> 00:07:16,300
argument is that we would have 
to have a really broad approach 

142
00:07:16,300 --> 00:07:19,200
to unjust enrichment in order 
for a constructive trust to come

143
00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:21,000
under. 
That underpinning Concept in 

144
00:07:21,000 --> 00:07:23,500
order for us to understand 
constructive trust. 

145
00:07:23,900 --> 00:07:27,800
This statement is incoherent and
without any basis in law or fact

146
00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:33,100
events generating Of trusts 
breach of fiduciary duty in a 

147
00:07:33,108 --> 00:07:35,200
constructive. 
Trust the defendant breaches a 

148
00:07:35,208 --> 00:07:38,700
duty owed to the plaintiff. 
The most common such breaches of

149
00:07:38,700 --> 00:07:41,900
breach of fiduciary duty such as
when an agent wrongfully, 

150
00:07:41,900 --> 00:07:44,600
obtains or holds property owned 
by a principal. 

151
00:07:45,100 --> 00:07:48,100
A controversial example, is the 
case of attorney general for 

152
00:07:48,100 --> 00:07:51,600
Hong Kong be read in, which a 
senior prosecutor took bribes 

153
00:07:51,600 --> 00:07:54,800
not to prosecute certain 
offenders with the bribe money. 

154
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,700
He purchased property in New 
Zealand, his employer, the 

155
00:07:58,700 --> 00:08:01,000
Attorney General. 
Sought a declaration that the 

156
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:03,900
property was held on 
constructive trust for it on the

157
00:08:03,900 --> 00:08:06,000
basis of breach of fiduciary 
duty. 

158
00:08:06,500 --> 00:08:09,100
The privy Council, awarded a 
constructive trust. 

159
00:08:09,600 --> 00:08:12,800
The case is different from Regal
Hastings, limited V. 

160
00:08:12,800 --> 00:08:15,300
Gulliver because there was no 
interference with a 

161
00:08:15,308 --> 00:08:17,900
profit-making opportunity that 
properly belong to the 

162
00:08:17,900 --> 00:08:21,100
prosecutor being a privy Council
decision. 

163
00:08:21,300 --> 00:08:24,400
Re did not overrule the previous
decision of the court of appeal 

164
00:08:24,400 --> 00:08:28,100
of England and Wales and mr. 
V stubs which held the opposite 

165
00:08:28,100 --> 00:08:31,200
partially because a trust is a 
Very strong remedy that gives 

166
00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:33,799
proprietary rights to the 
claimant not enjoyed by the 

167
00:08:33,808 --> 00:08:37,100
defendants other creditors in 
the event of the defendants 

168
00:08:37,100 --> 00:08:40,600
insolvency the trust assets are 
Untouchable by the general 

169
00:08:40,600 --> 00:08:44,400
creditors supporters of Lister 
suggested that there was no good

170
00:08:44,400 --> 00:08:46,100
reason to put the victim of 
wrongdoing. 

171
00:08:46,100 --> 00:08:48,200
Ahead of other creditors of the 
estate. 

172
00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:51,400
There was a tension in English 
law between Lister and read 

173
00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:55,000
which was highlighted in 
Sinclair Investments, UK limited

174
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:58,600
V, their PSI trade Finance, 
limited the United Kingdom 

175
00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:01,300
Supreme Court. 
In the overruled Sinclair and 

176
00:09:01,300 --> 00:09:04,100
fhr. 
European benchers LPD Cedar, 

177
00:09:04,100 --> 00:09:06,800
Capital Partners. 
LLC holding that Lister was no 

178
00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:09,700
longer. 
Good law property interference 

179
00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:13,500
in foskett V, McEwen, a trustees
trust money together with some 

180
00:09:13,500 --> 00:09:16,300
of his own money to purchase a 
life insurance policy. 

181
00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:20,600
Then he committed suicide, the 
insurance company paid out to 

182
00:09:20,600 --> 00:09:23,300
his family. 
The de frauded, beneficiaries of

183
00:09:23,300 --> 00:09:26,100
the trust sought a declaration 
that the proceeds were held on 

184
00:09:26,100 --> 00:09:29,700
constructive trust for them. 
The House of Lords said that the

185
00:09:29,800 --> 00:09:33,400
she Aries could choose between 
either a, a constructive trust 

186
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:36,000
over the proceeds, for the 
proportion of the life-insurance

187
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:39,800
payout, purchased with their 
money or be an equitable lien 

188
00:09:39,800 --> 00:09:42,000
over the fund for the repayment 
of that amount. 

189
00:09:42,400 --> 00:09:45,700
There's controversy as to what 
the true basis is of this, trust

190
00:09:46,100 --> 00:09:48,700
the House of Lords said that it 
was to vindicate the plaintiffs 

191
00:09:48,700 --> 00:09:52,700
original proprietary rights. 
However, this reasoning has been

192
00:09:52,700 --> 00:09:55,800
criticized as Tata August by 
some Scholars who suggest a 

193
00:09:55,808 --> 00:09:57,900
better basis is unjust 
enrichment. 

194
00:09:57,900 --> 00:10:00,400
See below. 
This is because There must be a 

195
00:10:00,400 --> 00:10:02,800
reason why a new property right 
is created. 

196
00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:05,300
For example, the trust. 
And that must be because 

197
00:10:05,300 --> 00:10:08,100
otherwise the family would be 
unjustly enriched by receiving 

198
00:10:08,100 --> 00:10:10,700
the proceeds of the insurance 
policy purchase with a 

199
00:10:10,700 --> 00:10:14,200
beneficiary's money interference
with the plaintiffs property, 

200
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:17,200
can justify why the plaintiff 
can get its property back from a

201
00:10:17,200 --> 00:10:20,500
thief, but it cannot explain why
new rights are generated in 

202
00:10:20,500 --> 00:10:23,100
property for which the 
plaintiffs original property is 

203
00:10:23,100 --> 00:10:26,300
swapped in. 
Foskett V, McEwen the plaintiffs

204
00:10:26,300 --> 00:10:29,100
original property was an 
interest in the trust fund. 

205
00:10:29,800 --> 00:10:31,500
The remedy. 
They obtained was a constructive

206
00:10:31,500 --> 00:10:34,800
trust over an insurance payout. 
It is not obvious. 

207
00:10:34,800 --> 00:10:37,100
Why such a new right? 
Should be awarded without saying

208
00:10:37,100 --> 00:10:40,600
it is to reverse the family's 
unjust enrichment, unjust 

209
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:44,800
enrichment, in Chase, Manhattan 
Bank Navi Israel, British Bank 

210
00:10:44,900 --> 00:10:48,100
London limited One Bank paid, 
another bank, a large sum of 

211
00:10:48,100 --> 00:10:51,300
money by mistake note that the 
recipient bank did not do 

212
00:10:51,300 --> 00:10:53,400
anything wrong. 
It just received money. 

213
00:10:53,400 --> 00:10:56,900
Now to it Goulding J. 
Held that the money was held on 

214
00:10:56,900 --> 00:10:59,200
constructive trust for the First
Bank. 

215
00:10:59,800 --> 00:11:03,300
Reasoning in this case has been 
doubted and in West Dortch, 

216
00:11:03,300 --> 00:11:06,200
landy's bank, erosion trial, V 
Islington London Borough 

217
00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:09,200
Council, the House of Lords 
distanced itself from the idea 

218
00:11:09,200 --> 00:11:12,400
that unjust enrichment, raises 
trust in the claimants favor. 

219
00:11:12,800 --> 00:11:15,500
This remains an area of intense 
controversy. 

220
00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:19,000
These types of trusts are called
institutional constructive 

221
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:20,700
trusts. 
They arise. 

222
00:11:20,700 --> 00:11:23,900
The moment, the relevant conduct
breach of Duty unjust 

223
00:11:23,900 --> 00:11:27,500
enrichment, Etc occurs. 
They can be contrasted with 

224
00:11:27,500 --> 00:11:30,500
remedial constructive trusts 
which are Rise on the date of 

225
00:11:30,500 --> 00:11:33,300
judgment as a remedy awarded by 
the court to do justice. 

226
00:11:33,300 --> 00:11:37,200
In a particular case, an example
is the Australian case Miskin 

227
00:11:37,200 --> 00:11:40,000
skeevy. 
Dad's a de facto couple lived in

228
00:11:40,000 --> 00:11:43,300
a house owned by the man. 
They agreed to make improvements

229
00:11:43,300 --> 00:11:46,400
to the property by building a 
pottery shed for the woman to do

230
00:11:46,400 --> 00:11:49,600
arts and crafts. 
Work in the woman paid for part 

231
00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:52,500
of this. 
They then broke up the high 

232
00:11:52,500 --> 00:11:55,300
court held that the man held the
property on constructive trust 

233
00:11:55,300 --> 00:11:57,400
for himself. 
And the woman in the proportions

234
00:11:57,400 --> 00:12:01,000
in which they had contributed to
the improvements to Land this 

235
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:03,400
trust did not arise. 
The moment, the woman commenced 

236
00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:06,800
improvements that conduct did 
not involve a breach of Duty or 

237
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:09,700
an unjust enrichment at cetera. 
The trust arose at the date of 

238
00:12:09,700 --> 00:12:13,600
judgment to do justice in the 
case, in Bathurst city council. 

239
00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:16,800
V PW C Properties, a high court 
that is constructive. 

240
00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:19,500
Trusts are the most severe 
remedy in cases, of breach of 

241
00:12:19,500 --> 00:12:22,900
fiduciary duty, they should only
be imposed when other remedies 

242
00:12:22,900 --> 00:12:24,900
are inappropriate in. 
Providing relief. 

243
00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:29,000
Common intention constructive 
trusts common intention 

244
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:31,900
constructive Trust consider the 
intention of the parties. 

245
00:12:32,300 --> 00:12:35,200
This is significantly found in 
the familial context. 

246
00:12:35,700 --> 00:12:39,000
For example, do the cohabitants 
have a beneficial interest in 

247
00:12:39,000 --> 00:12:42,100
their home here. 
Equity will follow the law 

248
00:12:42,600 --> 00:12:44,900
following stack, feed out an 
equity will look at the 

249
00:12:44,900 --> 00:12:47,900
registered owner as a property 
and then distributed in those 

250
00:12:47,900 --> 00:12:51,000
proportions. 
For example, if the parties had 

251
00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:54,000
joint legal ownership of a 
property, then there is a strong

252
00:12:54,000 --> 00:12:56,400
presumption that they have a 
beneficial interest. 

253
00:12:56,900 --> 00:13:00,700
However, in most cases with the 
cohabitants Person has legal 

254
00:13:00,700 --> 00:13:04,100
title in that case, the sole 
owner would be presumed to have 

255
00:13:04,100 --> 00:13:07,500
sole beneficial ownership. 
This can be problematic in 

256
00:13:07,500 --> 00:13:10,500
circumstances where the other 
cohabitant, the one who doesn't 

257
00:13:10,500 --> 00:13:13,400
have title does a lot to improve
the property, you just 

258
00:13:13,400 --> 00:13:17,600
contributes to it in some way. 
This can however be rebutted. 

259
00:13:17,600 --> 00:13:21,300
If there was common intention to
hold the property differently in

260
00:13:21,300 --> 00:13:24,500
such cases, the courts will find
a constructive trust in those 

261
00:13:24,500 --> 00:13:27,700
proportions. 
Actual inferred and imputed 

262
00:13:27,700 --> 00:13:31,500
intention if there is no 
Evidence of actual intention. 

263
00:13:31,600 --> 00:13:35,200
The courts will search for 
inferred or imputed intention in

264
00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:37,900
Jones V Kern at the Supreme 
Court inferred intention to the 

265
00:13:37,900 --> 00:13:40,900
parties. 
Therefore, imputed intention 

266
00:13:40,900 --> 00:13:43,100
involves a lot more judicial 
discretion. 

267
00:13:43,300 --> 00:13:45,400
Where is inferred? 
Intention is still supposed to 

268
00:13:45,400 --> 00:13:48,800
be based on the conduct between 
the parties joint venture. 

269
00:13:49,300 --> 00:13:52,100
The focus, here is the joint 
venture between the claimant and

270
00:13:52,100 --> 00:13:54,700
the defendant for there to be a 
joint venture. 

271
00:13:54,700 --> 00:13:57,400
It would be unconscionable for 
the defendant to deny the other 

272
00:13:57,400 --> 00:13:59,600
parties beneficial interest in 
the property. 

273
00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:03,000
The three main requirements for 
a joint venture constructive 

274
00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:06,500
trust our one an arrangement or 
understanding between the 

275
00:14:06,500 --> 00:14:10,900
parties to Reliance on that 
Arrangement or understanding and

276
00:14:10,900 --> 00:14:15,400
three an inconsistent act vendor
under a specifically enforceable

277
00:14:15,400 --> 00:14:18,400
contract for sale. 
The seller holds land on a 

278
00:14:18,408 --> 00:14:20,300
constructive trust for the 
purchaser. 

279
00:14:20,900 --> 00:14:23,400
However this is limited in 
Rainer. 

280
00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:25,900
V pressed in the claimant had 
purchased a property from the 

281
00:14:25,900 --> 00:14:28,900
defendant but the house was then
destroyed in the fire before 

282
00:14:28,900 --> 00:14:31,500
they could move in. 
In the defendant received a big 

283
00:14:31,500 --> 00:14:34,300
payout from the insurance 
company and refused to give that

284
00:14:34,300 --> 00:14:37,100
money to the claimant. 
It was held that the claimant 

285
00:14:37,100 --> 00:14:39,900
was not entitled to the payout 
because it was not the trust 

286
00:14:39,900 --> 00:14:42,700
property and because of the 
nature of the dispute, the 

287
00:14:42,700 --> 00:14:45,000
trustee only had a low standard 
of care. 

288
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:48,500
Particularly, when you compare 
it to an Express trustee the 

289
00:14:48,500 --> 00:14:51,800
purchaser also cannot transfer 
their beneficial interest before

290
00:14:51,800 --> 00:14:56,100
receiving legal title voluntary 
transactions, made by mistake, 

291
00:14:56,600 --> 00:14:59,100
the court can set aside a gift, 
or disposition where the 

292
00:14:59,100 --> 00:15:02,400
transfer Was made by mistake the
property must have been 

293
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:05,700
transferred by deed. 
Not an oral agreement usefulness

294
00:15:05,700 --> 00:15:09,700
of constructive, trusts, for 
example, if the defendants deals

295
00:15:09,700 --> 00:15:12,700
100,000 dollars from the 
plaintiff and uses that money to

296
00:15:12,700 --> 00:15:15,400
buy a house, the court can trace
the house, back to the 

297
00:15:15,400 --> 00:15:18,000
plaintiffs money and Dean the 
house to be held in trust for 

298
00:15:18,008 --> 00:15:20,600
the plaintiff. 
The defendant must then convey 

299
00:15:20,600 --> 00:15:22,300
title to the house to the 
plaintiff. 

300
00:15:22,400 --> 00:15:25,500
Even if Rising property values 
had appreciated, the value of 

301
00:15:25,500 --> 00:15:28,900
the house to 120,000 dollars. 
By the time, the transaction 

302
00:15:28,900 --> 00:15:31,200
occurred. 
If the value of the house had 

303
00:15:31,200 --> 00:15:34,500
instead depreciated to eighty 
thousand dollars, the plaintiff 

304
00:15:34,500 --> 00:15:37,800
could demand a remedy at law 
money, damages equal to the 

305
00:15:37,800 --> 00:15:41,700
amount stolen instead of an 
equitable remedy, the situation 

306
00:15:41,700 --> 00:15:43,900
would be different if the 
defendant had mixed his own 

307
00:15:43,900 --> 00:15:45,500
property with that of the 
plaintiff. 

308
00:15:45,700 --> 00:15:49,200
For example, adding 50 thousand 
dollars of his own money to the 

309
00:15:49,200 --> 00:15:53,200
100,000 dollars, stolen from the
plaintiff and buying a 150 

310
00:15:53,200 --> 00:15:56,900
thousand dollar house or using 
plaintiffs, 100,000 dollars to 

311
00:15:56,900 --> 00:15:59,200
add a room to the defendants 
existing house. 

312
00:15:59,700 --> 00:16:02,100
The constructive trust would 
still be available but in 

313
00:16:02,100 --> 00:16:05,200
proportion to the contributions,
not wholly in the claimants 

314
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:07,800
favor. 
Alternatively, the claimant 

315
00:16:07,800 --> 00:16:10,700
could elect for an equitable 
lien instead, which is like a 

316
00:16:10,700 --> 00:16:14,000
mortgage over the asset to 
secure repayment because a 

317
00:16:14,008 --> 00:16:16,400
constructive trust is an 
equitable device. 

318
00:16:16,600 --> 00:16:19,200
The defendant can raise all of 
the available Equitable 

319
00:16:19,200 --> 00:16:22,900
defenses, against it including 
unclean hands, watches, 

320
00:16:23,100 --> 00:16:25,500
detrimental, Reliance and undue 
hardship.