Grade: A+ Course Prize Winner
Download 0.79 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Equitable Fraud Bannister v Bannister – Statute of Frauds
- Mutual Wills
- Secret Trusts
- – Stranger Acting as Trustee
Unjust Enrichment Pettkus v Becker Pettkus v Becker – Three Point Test An enrichment of the defendant A corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff and Rational connection Absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment No basis in law for defendant to have been enriched People are allowed to be enriched/deprive via contract Legislation – pay taxes No real common law division of assets at the time, called Becker his wife, claimed tax relief for her. Becker paid for rent, clothing, food, other living expenses, Pettkus saved all his income, started a farm with his money and in his name. Becker continued paying expenses, contributing to farm, Pettkus contributed to materials on farm viz bee keeping Both worked on bee keeping operation, used old proceeds to buy new farm and additional property Becker left for 3 months, threw 3k in cash on the ground and the car and 40 beehives, see you later (hives died) – tried to rehabilitate relationship, didn’t work/ sought half interest due to joint effort If they had been married properly, wouldn’t have been an issue Court: He was enriched by her free labour to purchase other assets, obviously a corresponding detriment, being deprived of monthly income Is there a juristic reason? No – claim is met in UE Where a person prejudices themselves with a reasonable expectation for an interest in property and the person knows about this, it would be unjust to keep the property If you meet UE, don’t automatically get a CT. Normally get monetary damages. For a constructive trust to be awarded (instead of money) there must be a connection between the deprivation and the actual acquisition of the property in question Unjust enrichment lies at heart of constructive trust (although CT’s do apply without unjust enrichment) Is the deprivation viz her labour connected to the acquisition of property? Yes of course Extent of the constructive trust will be proportionate to the contribution They jointly started from nothing, made it a success, 50% held in favour of Becker She couldn’t collect her debt, by the time she did, lawyer took all the money, she committed suicide. Sorochan v Sorochan (common law) Live together, mixed farming operation, title farm in Husbands name, also supplementing farm income with travelling sales gig. During time, Wife does all the work, chores, domestic labour, etc She leaves him, wants half farm. He had farm in advance of meeting her, different than creating joint enterprise No connection to acquisition Constructive Trust not limited to property acquisition Contribution doesn’t always involve capital contribution Includes contributions toward the preservation, maintenance or improvement of the property Her labour for 42 years, clear link between her work and asset Also had reasonable expectation of acquiring interest in property Services rendered must have a clear proprietary relationship Must be directly related to property in question Holds 1/3rd in CT for Mary Peter v Beblow Unmarried – cohabitating, 4 children of wife and 2 of husband, live in common law husband home for 12 years. Wife acted as mom to all, cook, clean, did everything Is it CT or UE? Must be a sufficiently substantial and direct link between contribution and the property CT only available where money is an insufficient remedy such as where there is a special connection to the property Due to giving property rights De minimus contributions don’t apply Monetary award may be an insufficient remedy where the defendant is not likely to be able to pay the award Here, CT on property, made special contributions to the home, domestic services, payed off mortgage faster as a result, also to buy another piece of property Money tied up in assets, foolish to award money as he was probably going to die soon anyways How to value? Look to amount it increased in value, rather than value of services Kerr v Baranow Facts: Supra Court: Need to think of broader public policy concerns at all times UE – Trying to reverse the enrichment Monetary remedies should be preferred Don’t go down the CT road so quickly Proprietary remedies only where the plaintiff demonstrates a link or causal connection between the property and the acquisition, preservation, maintenance, or improvement of the property and a monetary award would be insufficient. Can take into account defendants inability to pay a monetary award and whether there are reasons to grant additional rights that come from a proprietary interest Share in the equitable interest will be awarded proportionally to the contribution Predicated on the link and money not being sufficient Equitable Fraud Bannister v Bannister – Statute of Frauds Purchased cottage, wants to kick defendant out of cottage, purchased it from him Defendant – you gave me oral assurance that I could stay here rent free for life I even reduced the price by 1/3rd to facilitate this deal Plaintiff – not in writing, all interests in land have to be in writing Court: Impose CT for life interest, rent free, because you are trying to use SoF to perpetuate unconscionable conduct. Equivalent to tea plantation case University of Manitoba v Sanderson Estate – Mutual Wills All property goes to surviving partner, after they die, all goes to the school Husbands interest enlarged by survivorship, later changes will, wants to give to other people University: mutual will is not being upheld, should impress his new will with a trust Court: no unjust enrichment, special provision that prevented revocation, would be an equitable fraud to later have survivor change the will Equity impresses a CT on assets upon the death of one partner to effectuate a mutual will Blackwell v Blackwell – Secret Trusts Semi-secret trust: objects must be provided before or at the time of the signing of the will (unlike fully secret trusts) Here, instructions had not yet been provided at time of will, provided at time prior to death though Court: Can’t supply purpose after the fact of the will, must provide instructions or way to find instructions at time of will creation 3 Requirements with respect to secret trusts: Communication by the testator to the trustee regarding the intent to create a trust Acceptance of the trust obligation by the trustee; and Would take it as a gift if they didn’t accept, about equity’s conscience The correct timing of the communication Fully secret trust: any point before death Semi-secret trust: before or at the drafting of the will Citadel General Assurance Co v Lloyds Bank of Canada – Stranger Acting as Trustee Trustee de son tort: assuming the office or function of the trustee (such as administering trust funds) Meddler: pretending to be a trustee, not the real trustee, but will be made as such Assisting trustees in committing a breach of trust: “Knowing assistance” Must be actual or reckless knowledge (not constructive) Helping as lawyer, service provider, etc Receiving trust property for personal use and benefit: Knowing receipt Constructive knowledge is sufficient You know it is in breach of trust, will impose CT to get it back Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> gravity forms -> 1-7d6c8355b7f07846e8789d85deabdb60 -> 2016 gravity forms -> Earl E. Klein Jr gravity forms -> Narrative of how the entry meets the award criteria – July 28, 2016 gravity forms -> Revonda M. Baldwin gravity forms -> Air Atlanta Icelandic November 2006 – Current 2016 -> Ip master Guide 1-7d6c8355b7f07846e8789d85deabdb60 -> Insurance Law can Download 0.79 Mb. Share with your friends:
|