|
Resulting trusts in English law are trusts created where property is not properly disposed of. It comes from the Latin ''resultare'', meaning to spring back, and was defined by Megarry VC as "essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own".〔 These trusts come in two forms: automatic resulting trusts, and presumed resulting trusts. Automatic resulting trusts arise from a "gap" in the equitable title of property. The equitable maxim "equity abhors a vacuum" is followed: it is against principle for a piece of property to have no owner. As such, the courts assign the property to somebody in a resulting trust to avoid this becoming an issue. They occur in one of four situations: where there is no declaration of trust, where an express trust fails, where there is surplus property, or upon the dissolution of an unincorporated association. Rules differ depending on the situation and the type of original trust under dispute; failed charitable trusts, for example, have the property reapplied in a different way from other forms of trust. Where property passes between individuals, English law presumes that the relationship between them makes it an outright gift, and thus not subject to a resulting trust in the event of failure; this is the "presumption of advancement". A presumed resulting trust occurs where the transfer fails, and there is no reason to assume it was intended as an outright gift. With some relationships, such as property transfers between father and son and husband and wife, this presumption of advancement is applied by default, and requires strong evidence for it to be rebutted. Presumed resulting trusts do arise, however, in one of three situations: where it is a voluntary gift, where there is a contribution to purchase price, and where the presumption that it was an outright gift can be rebutted. Rules differ for transfers and gifts of personal property and land; while personal property is assumed by default to create a resulting trust, Section 60(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925 prevents the creation of automatic resulting trusts. It does not comment on presumed resulting trusts, and while later law has seemingly permitted such trusts, there is some disagreement. ==Definition== The name resulting trust comes from the Latin ''resultare'', meaning to spring back. It was defined in ''Re Sick and Funeral Society of St John's Sunday School, Golcar'',〔() 2 All ER 439〕 where Megarry VC stated that "A resulting trust is essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own".〔Edwards (2007) p.254〕 In ''Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2)'',〔() 3 All ER 205〕 he divided them into two categories; presumed resulting trusts, which are created by the presumed intention of the transferor of property, and automatic resulting trusts, which arise regardless of the transferor's intention whenever he has failed to dispose of the beneficial interest.〔Edwards (2007) p.255〕 Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in ''Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington London Borough Council'',〔() 2 All ER 961〕 disagreed with Megarry's classification. While he agreed there were two categories, he felt the dividing line was not based on intention, and the classes were "where A makes a voluntary payment to B or pays (wholly or in part) for the purchase of property which is vested either in B alone or in the joint names of A and B" and "Where A transfers property to B on express trusts, but the trusts declared do not exhaust the whole beneficial interest", with both involving a presumption of intention. It is possible to argue that Quistclose trusts are also a category of resulting trusts, but their classification is the subject of much debate and remains ambiguous.〔Edwards (2007) p.256〕 The theoretical justification for resolving trusts was discussed by the Privy Council, in ''Air Jamaica v Charlton'',〔() 1 WLR 1399〕 where Lord Millet said that "Like a constructive trust, a resulting trust arises by operation of law, though unlike a constructive trust it gives effect to intention. But it arises whether or not the transferor intended to retain a beneficial interest - he almost always does not - since it responds to the absence of any intention on his part to pass a beneficial interest to the recipient". Resulting trusts were intended to fill in the gap left by a veiled transfer, obeying the equitable maxim that "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy".〔Edwards (2007) p.257〕 In ''Westdeutsche Landesbank'', Browne-Wilkinson stated that resulting trusts "are traditionally regarded as examples of trusts giving effect to the common intention of the parties. A resulting trust is not imposed by law against the intentions of the trustee (as in a constructive trust) but gives effect to his presumed intention". Alastair Hudson, Professor of Equity and Law at Queen Mary, University of London, argues that Browne-Wilkinson's theory is flawed, primarily because if the trust can not be enforced against the trustee's wishes, it is a form of constructive trust.〔Hudson (2009) p.457〕 Much of the case law is instead based on Megarry's classification.〔Hudson (2009) p.459〕 Resulting trusts work on a principle of "common intention". This is the idea that a resulting trust is a mix of the settlor's intention, and the trustee's knowledge that he is not intended to be the beneficiary. In ''Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd'',〔() Ch 207〕 Gibson J expressed the principle as: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Resulting trusts in English law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|