this should be ridiculously straightforward but i can't wrap my head around it -
a father purchases property in his daughter's sole name, contributing half the purchase price in cash, and the other half by a mortgage that he makes the daughter responsible for.
- the situation is within the realm of advancement (father-child)
- advancement can be rebutted (Lavelle v Lavelle) where there is evidence that the intention was not to make a gift
- if advancement is rebutted then it's a PRT
my instinct was that you could rebut the presumption of advancement pretty easily by saying that the daughter was responsible for the mortgage, which would suggest against an outright gift of the property - but now i'm not sure. any help?!
edit: now thinking that you can't rebut the presumption - Lavelle v Lavelle the evidence used to rebut was tax avoidance - no such indication here so it should be a straightforward application of presumption of advancement?