Proprietary estoppel and future property

After Thorner it seems that an assurance for proprietary estoppel must relate to identifiable property and that a claim to an estate in the future (where there is substantial doubt as to what it will comprise) will  be inadequate. Re Basham may mark the furthest extreme of what is possible.

In McDonald v Frost ([2009] EWHC 2276) J entered into a bargain with his daughters. The court found that the bargain was that in return for gifts made to each of them during his life (equivalent to 20,000 pounds each) they would each pay him 100 pounds a month for the rest of his life. Although he may have made assurances that he would leave the family house to them on his death, they were not the reason for the monthly payments and there was no detrimental reliance upon them.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: