Free Law Dissertations - Catherine Must Then Prove That She Acted To Her Detriment By Relying On The
Catherine must then prove that she acted to her detriment by relying on the common intention. This can be shown by her giving up Rose Cottage. It would be up to Andrew and Beatrice to prove in court that Catherine’s actions were not done in reliance on their agreement.
Once Catherine’s beneficial ownership is established, she has a right of occupation under s.12 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Catherine’s remedies will depend on which implied trust she chooses to claim under. Under the resulting trust, if Catherine were to agree to the sale of Grange House, she would be entitled to 70% of the sale proceeds. This would equate to £175,000.00 if the house was sold for £250,000.00. Under the constructive trust, the courts would look to give effect to the common intention of the parties. Thus the court could grant an injunction preventing the sale of Grange House and allow Catherine to reside there indefinitely.
Rose Cottage
Ian has acquired an equitable interest in Rose Cottage under the law of proprietary estoppel.
Proprietary estoppel operates here as Catherine, the legal owner of Rose Cottage assures Ian that he will receive rights in her property and Ian, in reliance of this assurance, acts to his detriment.
Traditionally, proprietary estoppel required the satisfaction of the five ‘probanda’. However, courts have been reluctant to follow such rigid guidelines and more often follow the more general principles of assurance, reliance and detriment.
Significantly, Catherine assures Ian at a family gathering that she considered Rose Cottage to be his. It is only when she says this that Ian’s equitable rights come about. Previously, he has only contributed to general re-decorating and bills, the courts have previously ruled that this is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of detriment. It is only Ian’s significant renovation of the house which gives him a strong case.
If it can be proved that an estoppel has arisen in this case. Ian will not automatically be granted rights in Rose Cottage. It is merely established that an equity has arisen. The courts will look at the unconscionability of Catherine denying Ian any rights in Rose Cottage. The courts have been unpredictable in this respect, and have at times mere licences and at others granted the fee simple.
In this case, the courts are likely to take into account Catherine’s belief that she would have another home for as long as she liked in Grange House.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cheshire and Burn, The Modern Law of Real Property (16th Ed.) Butterworths, 2000
Hudson, Alistair, Equity and Trusts (2nd Ed.), Cavendish Publishing, 2001
The Law Commission, Sharing Homes, [2002] EWLC 278(2) (01 November 2002)
Riddall, J G, The Law of Trusts (6th Ed.), Butterworths, 2002
Robertson, Andrew, Reliance and expectation in Estoppel, 18 Legal Studies
Smith, Roger, Property Law (4th Ed.
Dissertations - Free Law Dissertations
