- Published on
KembaraXtra - Legal Terms - Resulting Trust
A resulting trust is a type of implied trust that arises automatically by operation of law. It occurs when property is transferred in circumstances suggesting that the beneficial interest was not intended to pass completely to the recipient. The trust is not created by an express declaration. Instead, the law imposes it based on the nature of the transaction. Resulting trusts play an important role in equity and property law.
One situation in which a resulting trust arises is where an express trust fails to dispose of the entire beneficial interest. In such cases, the undisposed beneficial interest returns, or “results,” back to the settlor. This principle was confirmed in Re Vandervell’s Trusts. The law assumes that the settlor did not intend the trustee to keep the beneficial interest. Consequently, the property is held on trust for the settlor.
Another common situation involves voluntary transfers of property. If a person transfers property to another without receiving payment, the law may presume that the recipient holds the property on resulting trust for the transferor. This presumption is rebuttable and may be displaced by evidence of a gift. The principle was recognized in Hodgson v Marks. The court will examine the intentions of the parties before reaching a conclusion.
Resulting trusts also arise in cases involving contributions to the purchase price of property. If two people contribute to the purchase price but legal title is placed in only one name, the law may presume that beneficial ownership reflects their contributions. Each person’s share generally corresponds to the proportion of money contributed. This principle remains important in commercial property transactions. However, its role in family home disputes has been significantly reduced by modern case law.
The concept of the resulting trust continues to evolve. Courts and scholars debate its precise basis and scope. Some legal commentators argue that Quistclose trusts are a special form of resulting trust. Others reject this analysis and prefer alternative explanations. Despite these debates, resulting trusts remain a fundamental mechanism for preventing unjust retention of beneficial interests.
A resulting trust is a type of implied trust that arises automatically by operation of law. It occurs when property is transferred in circumstances suggesting that the beneficial interest was not intended to pass completely to the recipient. The trust is not created by an express declaration. Instead, the law imposes it based on the nature of the transaction. Resulting trusts play an important role in equity and property law.
One situation in which a resulting trust arises is where an express trust fails to dispose of the entire beneficial interest. In such cases, the undisposed beneficial interest returns, or “results,” back to the settlor. This principle was confirmed in Re Vandervell’s Trusts. The law assumes that the settlor did not intend the trustee to keep the beneficial interest. Consequently, the property is held on trust for the settlor.
Another common situation involves voluntary transfers of property. If a person transfers property to another without receiving payment, the law may presume that the recipient holds the property on resulting trust for the transferor. This presumption is rebuttable and may be displaced by evidence of a gift. The principle was recognized in Hodgson v Marks. The court will examine the intentions of the parties before reaching a conclusion.
Resulting trusts also arise in cases involving contributions to the purchase price of property. If two people contribute to the purchase price but legal title is placed in only one name, the law may presume that beneficial ownership reflects their contributions. Each person’s share generally corresponds to the proportion of money contributed. This principle remains important in commercial property transactions. However, its role in family home disputes has been significantly reduced by modern case law.
The concept of the resulting trust continues to evolve. Courts and scholars debate its precise basis and scope. Some legal commentators argue that Quistclose trusts are a special form of resulting trust. Others reject this analysis and prefer alternative explanations. Despite these debates, resulting trusts remain a fundamental mechanism for preventing unjust retention of beneficial interests.
0 Comments