Common intention constructive trust: condition attached to express agreement not satisfied

In Gallarotti v Sebastianelli ([2012] EWCA Civ 865, CA (Eng)) G and S were friends. They had each gone to England from Italy. G and S shared rented accommodation and then bought a flat. This was a platonic arrangement. They were happy to share until they were ready to buy homes of their own.

The title was in S’s name. G and S had an express agreement that they would be equal beneficial owners. This agreement was conditional on G contributing more than S to the mortgage repayments since S made a larger contribution than G to the down payment.

G did make some contributions but did not pay as much as S did towards the mortgage; the disparity was significant. The conditional element of the express agreement was not satisfied.

The friends fell out and G sought a declaration as to the extent of his beneficial interest. Arden LJ gave the only full judgment; the other members of the English Court of Appeal were content to agree with her.

The terms of the express agreement showed that ‘the parties were concerned that their ultimate shares in the Flat should, broadly speaking, represent their contributions to it’ ([24]). ‘[T]he inference to be made from the parties’ course of conduct was that they intended that their financial contributions should be taken into account but not that there should be any precise accounting’ ([25]). S had a 75% beneficial interest and G had 25%.

Michael Lower

 

 

Advertisement

Post-acquisition variation of existing common intention?

In Chen Lily v Yip Tsun Wah Alvan ([2016] HKEC 2326, CA) a couple acquired a flat in which they intended to cohabit prior to marriage. The property was acquired in their joint names. The couple broke up and the defendant moved out. There was a dispute as to their respective beneficial entitlements. At first instance it was held, following Stack v Dowden, that given that the couple had purchased the flat as their family home the presumption was that they were beneficial joint tenants.

The plaintiff accepted that the original common intention was that the property would be held as beneficial joint tenants. She argued, however, that there was a subsequent variation of the original common intention so that she would have a larger share of the beneficial ownership. The plaintiff argued that the original joint tenancy was agreed to by her on the basis that the defendant would be solely responsible for the costs of acquiring the flat (both the up-front cost and the mortgage payments). She contended that the common intention was varied when it became clear that she would have to contribute to the acquisition costs because the defendant could not meet them entirely out of his own resources.

The Court of Appeal, Yuen JA giving the main judgment, accepted that such a variation could be inferred from conduct. It was for the plaintiff to prove this variation but she was unable to do so. There was no evidence of any changed common intention. This was a domestic joint venture and attempts to draw up a ‘balance sheet’ based on contributions made were ill-conceived. There was no evidence of any change in the original common intention to hold as beneficial joint tenants.

The domestic joint venture context no longer applied after separation and an order requiring the defendant to bear half the mortgage costs after separation reflected the parties’ intention in the changed circumstances. In any event, the plaintiff was entitled to recover these on the basis that they were payments that were made in order to preserve the property for the parties’ joint benefit ([28.3]).

Michael Lower

Establishing a common intention constructive trust

In Fung Oi Ha v Fung Pui On ([2016] HKEC 1272, CFI) the title to a family home was in the father’s name. In 2005, the father assigned the home into the names of himself and his son as joint tenants. In 2011, the father and son assigned the home into the son’s sole name. The son gave no consideration for either of these assignments. One of the daughters brought proceedings seeking a declaration that she had a beneficial interest under a common intention constructive trust. There was no express agreement that she was to have an interest. The daughter relied on the fact that, since taking up employment, she had over many years given a large proportion of her salary to her mother and this money had been used to discharge the outgoings and expenses of the property. She had also  looked after the father since his first stroke in 2003. The daughter’s claim failed.

Recorder Lisa K Y Wong SC considered whether the common intention could be inferred. She commented on the difference in approach between Lord Bridge in Rosset (only contributions to purchase price or mortgage installments will do) and Fox LJ in Burns v Burns (any payments  referable to the acquisition of the house will do, including contributions to household expenses that allow the other party to meet the mortgage payments) (at [78]). In fact, the judge took a broader view: a holistic review of the whole course of dealing applying the factors identified by Baroness Hale in paragraph 69 of Stack v Dowden should be undertaken ([90] – [94]). This did not help the plaintiff, in this case:

‘Given the multifactorial nature of the question of intention, just as there are cases where the proof of financial contributions by one who is not the legal owner or in excess of one’s share of legal ownership may readily justify the inference of an intention to share beneficial ownership, there would conceivably be instances where the establishment of financial contributions does not support the inference of a common intention to share beneficial ownership. I am inclined to think that this present case is just such an instance.’ ([100]).

Context is relevant: this was not a claim by a spouse to a share in the matrimonial home ([101]):

‘The relationship with which I am concerned is that between parents and children in what appears to be a conventional Chinese family practising traditional family values … I daresay, in a lot of these cases, the parents (and probably the children too) would be taken aback if they be told that, even in the absence of an express agreement or understanding, the children’s contributions could be used to support the inference of an intention to share the beneficial interest of the parents’ property (which may be the parents’ only shelter in old age) if such contributions should happen to be applied toward the mortgage payments of the property.’ ([102]).

The plaintiff failed and was ordered to give up possession of the property to her brother.

Michael Lower

 

The common intention constructive trust is not limited to the ‘domestic consumer’ context

In Chan Sang v Chan Kwok ([2015] HKEC 822, CFI) title to shop premises was in the joint names of the plaintiff and the defendant (who were brothers). The legal title was held by them as tenants in common in equal shares. The plaintiff successfully claimed to be the sole beneficial owner. The court made a declaration to this effect and ordered the defendant to convey his half share to the plaintiff. The defendant’s name was on the title deeds because of an agreement between the parties and their father. The father made a loan to the plaintiff to allow him to purchase the shop and the defendant’s name was on the title deeds as a form of security. The agreement was that the defendant would give up his share once the loan had been fully repaid. The plaintiff had fully repaid the loan and had also made all the payments due to a bank under the mortgage that had been entered into at the time of acquisition. The defendant made no payments that were referable to the property. The plaintiff had established that he was sole beneficial owner under either a common intention constructive trust or a resulting trust ([76]).

The defendant, basing himself on Laskar v Laskar, argued that the common intention constructive trust had no application here and applied only in the ‘domestic consumer’ context.  Anderson Chow J. rejected this.  Laskar was, rather, authority for the proposition that the Stack v Dowden presumption of equality in joint name cases only applied to the ‘domestic consumer’ context.  In fact, the case goes to show that it is difficult to draw a dividing line between the domestic and consumer contexts.

Michael Lower

Proving the existence of a common intention constructive trust in sole name cases: is marriage enough? Beneficiaries have a duty to inform purchasers where they are aware that a contract has been signed.

In Mo Ying v Brillex Development Ltd ([2015] HKEC 583, CA) H married W in Hangzhou. Shortly afterwards, H returned to Hong Kong and bought a flat in his sole name, using a combination of his own money and a mortgage taken out in his own name. A few months later, W joined him in Hong Kong and asked why her name was not on the title deeds. H told her that this was troublesome and would cause expense. W did not pursue the matter as she thought that the fact of the marriage entitled her to a share in the property. The marriage broke up and W argued that she had an interest under a common intention constructive trust.

On the facts of this case, the husband’s excuse could not be construed as an agreement that W was entitled to an interest. Unlike Grant v Edwards  and Eves v Eves, the words used were equivocal and W did not take them to mean that she was to have an interest in the property ([7.6]  and [7.7] per Cheung JA). There was a suggestion that H had told W that ‘What belongs to me belongs to you’. Had it been proved, this would have been decisive in W’s favour; it had not been proved ([7.2] per Cheung JA).

The whole course of conduct can be referred to when deciding whether or not a common intention constructive trust exists in a sole name case ([6.2] per Cheung JA).  The fact that the parties are married is an important feature of the whole course of conduct but, on its own, it does not give rise to an inference that a common intention constructive trust exists ([7.17] per Cheung JA and [11.4] per Yuen JA). There were no other features of the case that pointed to the existence of a common intention constructive trust. The evidence did not suggest that the parties had pooled their assets and liabilities ([7.19] per Cheung JA). Any payments that W had made towards household expenses were not referable to any common intention that she was to have an interest in the property ([7.20] per Cheung JA). Detrimental reliance remains a necessary element of the common intention constructive trust ([6.12] per Cheung JA).

H sold the property. W was informed of the sale once the provisional sale and purchase agreement had been signed but did nothing to protect her interest or to inform the purchaser of her rights. The sale was later completed. While the purchaser had constructive notice of any interest that W might have (because of her occupation and the purchaser’s failure to inspect) this did not mean that W could not be estopped from enforcing her rights against the purchaser. Her silence, once she knew of the contract, gave rise to an estoppel ([8.7]  and [8.12] per Cheung JA, [11.10] per Yuen JA and [20] per Kwan JA). Even if it were seen as being a proprietary estoppel, it could be relied upon as a defence. It is unhelpful to draw rigid distinctions between types of estoppel ([8.9] and [8.10] per Cheung JA).

This case provide an extremely important review by the Court of Appeal of the framework for the law of the common intention constructive  trust in Hong Kong. It draws on the English developments in Stack v Dowden, Abbott v Abbott and Jones v Kernott. Further, W had commenced divorce proceedings. The comparison between W’s family law rights and her rights as a matter of strict property law is a fascinating thread running through Cheung JA’s judgment. As a wife, W had rights under family law. Should the law of the common intention constructive trust also be especially responsive to the relationship? As explained above, the conclusion reached, ‘with regret’ ([7.23]) was that in the absence of any basis other than marriage for inferring an agreement, W had no claim as a matter of property law.

Michael Lower

Common intention constructive trust arising on a family division

In Yip Chiu Fu v Ip Chiu Fat ([2015] HKEC 201, CFI) a family comprising three fongs owned a house in Shek O (‘the first house’). The family funds, beneficially owned by the entire family, were then used to buy another house in the village (‘the second house’) and a common intention was to be inferred from the source of the funds that the second house was held on trust for the entire family. There was a family division in the second world war. The first house was allocated to the first fong; the ground floor of the second house was allocated to the second fong and the first floor of the second house was allocated to the third fong. Legal title to the first house was now with representatives of the first fong. Legal title to the second house had been kept exclusively within the third fong.

Louis Chan J found that this family division gave rise to a common intention constructive trust that gave each fong beneficial ownership of the physical accommodation allocated to it ([223]). The detriment was the giving up by each fong of its claim to the area allocated to the other fongs ([224]).

Legal title to the second house passed from one generation to the next of the third fong with full knowledge of the beneficial entitlements so that they were not bona fide purchasers without notice ([226]). When the second fong complained, they were told that one of their representatives would be added to the legal title. This never happened but this failure had to be viewed against the background of the assurance of the third fong’s representative that the second fong’s rights would always be respected.

The second fong’s representative now sought a declaration that the third fong’s representatives held the ground floor of the second house on trust for them and that they had an exclusive right to the use and possession of it. She also sought an order vesting title to the property in her (as personal representative of the original head of the second fong). She obtained the orders that she sought.

The third fong argued that the claim was time-barred because of the failure to insist on compliance with the promise to include a representative of the second fong on the title deeds. This failed because this was not wrongful ([236]). In any event, s. 20(1)(b) of the Limitation Ordinance applies to constructive trustees and there is no period of limitation to recover trust property from a trustee ([239]).

Even assuming the failure to honour the promise as to the title to the second house to be wrongful, mere standing by after the breach had been completed could not amount to acquiescence ([243])

Michael Lower

Legal joint tenancy: determining beneficial ownership under a common intention constructive trust

In Lo Kau Kun v Cheung Yuk Yun ([2015] HKEC 316, CFI) a married couple bought a flat as joint tenants. P claimed that the property was held on common intention constructive trust in equal shares. D claimed that she was the sole beneficial owner. Deputy Judge Sakhrani referred to the statements in Stack v Dowden ([68] in Stack) and Jones v Kernott ( [51] in Jones) to the effect that where the legal title is in joint names and there is a question as to beneficial ownership equity follows the law (so that a legal joint tenancy gives rise to equal shares) but that it may be possible to show a contrary intention (the burden of proof being on the party seeking to establish this). P had paid the down payment. P and D were jointly liable under the terms of the mortgage and each had contributed to the mortgage payments. Crucially, there was a finding that the parties had discussed their intentions concerning the ownership of the property ([63]). The couple had agreed that the property was to be a family asset (to be held equally as a family asset according to P) ([64]). This (not the record of financial contributions) was determinative. The property was held on common intention constructive trust in equal shares ([66]).

D also argued that she had extinguished P’s title by adverse possession. P had left the property in 1993 after a violent argument and never returned ([77]). This argument failed since D was entitled to be in possession as co-owner. There was no evidence of the ouster that would be necessary for this claim to succeed ([81]).

Michael Lower

Common intention constructive trust? Applying Jones v Kernott.

Geary v Rankine ([2012] EWCA Civ 555, CA (Eng)) concerned a claim by G to a beneficial interest under a common intention constructive trust of property initially bought as a commercial investment, title to which was in R’s name alone. R had supplied the entire purchase price. The Court of Appeal summarised its understanding of the relevant principles after Jones v Kernott. On the primary question as to whether there is a trust or not, Lewison L.J. said:

‘Mrs Geary has the burden of establishing some sort of implied trust; normally what is now termed a “common intention” constructive trust. The burden is all the more difficult to discharge where, as here, the property was bought as an investment rather than as a home. The search is to ascertain the parties’ actual shared intentions, whether express or to be inferred from their conduct.’ ([18]) (emphasis added)

There are two exceptions to this exclusive focus on actual intention. First, where there is a presumed resulting trust (but R had supplied the entire purchase price so there was no such trust in this case). This seems to suggest that the presumed resulting trust is in some way disconnected from actual intention. Second, the court can impute an intention once the existence of a trust has been proved but where the court cannot discern any actual agreement as to how the beneficial interests are to be shared. The quantification of the beneficial interests can rely on an imputed intention but imputation is not relevant to the question as to whether or not a common intention constructive trust had come into existence ([19]).

Lewison LJ, dealing with the question as to whether or not a common intention constructive trust had come into existence said:

‘actual intention may have been expressly manifested, or may be inferred from conduct; but actual intention it remains.’ (at [21]).

Here there was no evidence of a common intention (either formed at the time of acquisition or subsequently) that G was to have a beneficial interest at all.

Michael Lower

Constructive trust: significance of assuming joint liability for mortgage

In Hyett v Stanley ([2003] EWCA Civ. 942, CA (Eng)) F and H co-habited. Their home was in F’s name alone. They pooled their financial resources. They were under financial strain and the bank would only lend money if H agreed to accept joint liability for the mortgage payments. F told her that she could safely do this without a formal transfer of title since, he asserted, allowing her name to be added to the mortgage have her a right to the property. The Court of Appeal found that this could only be construed as an agreement that she was to have an interest under a common intention constructive trust. Since she was jointly and severally liable under the terms of the mortgage the Court of Appeal inferred an understanding that each would have a one half beneficial interest in the property.

There was also a mortgage protection life assurance policy. F and H were said to be joint tenants of the proceeds of the policy. F had died and H claimed the entire proceeds. The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision that the policy had first to be applied in paying off the mortgage. H was only entitled to the balance remaining after that repayment.

Common intention constructive trust: imputed intention in a sole name case

In Aspden v Elvy ([2012] EWHC 1387) A and E had cohabited and had two children. Long after the relationship broke down A transferred the ownership of a barn with planning permission for conversion to a dwelling-house to E. He may have hoped that they would resume their relationship. A also provided between GBP65,000 to GBP70,000 towards the cost of the conversion works. They had a further dispute and there was a question as to whether A had an interest in the barn under either a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The judge found that A had intended an outright gift of the title but had not intended to make a gift of the money needed for the conversion works. He intended to acquire an interest in the barn and E knew this. As a result, he was entitled to a 25% interest in the barn (it had a market value of GBP400,000 so this would give him GBP100,00 which the judge thought was a reasonable return on his investment). The judge said that the elements of a proprietary estoppel were also present and would have led to the same outcome.

On the question of the valuation, HH Judge Behrens said that there had been no express discussion as to how the beneficial ownership was to be shared and the only available evidence was the market value of the property. In these circumstances,

‘I have to impute an intention by reference to what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between the parties.’ ([123]).