Can someone please help me with this problem I'm having in land law

Watch this thread
Efron
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Say if their are a couple of joint tenants in law and equity but one of those JT holds it on resulting trust for someone else, if a third party gains a constructive trust based on what that JT holding it on resulting trust says, then how will that constructive trust be valid, seeing as when a CT arises it has to turn the share into a Tenant in common between the JT and third party, but because the JT is holding it on resulting trust, then they are merely the legal JT, if so they do not own the equitable share as they are merely the legal JT's and so a tenant in common cannot exist in law with the third party under the Constructive trust and neither can it be severed in law as a mere JT in law to become a TC from the other JT'S .


So my question is, that I can argue that it can't exist under a Constructive trust in this case, but what if their is a valid constructive trust based on common intention and detrimental reliance, will not the law take precedence over the rule of TC not existing in law or whatever in this novel scenario.


I cannot find any case law or legislation about what will happen in this situation if merely the legal JT promises something to a third party and a constructive trust arises, but under a Constructive trust it must then become a TC between the mere legal JT and third party, and a TC cannot exist in law, as in this case where the JT is merely the legal owner who made the promise/statement to the third party while holding all the equitable share on resulting trust for another person.


So these are two conflicting rules that collide in this scenario, and there is no law giving a solution to this.*


Will it suffice if I just respond of why it cannot exist, and leave the part about the power of the constructive trust in this situation on wheather it would be enforced or not seeing as there is no law that it will in this situation, but there is some room to argue on why it would not even though that argument is very shallow, and I do not want to make it sound that I'm making stuff up without backing it up properly. What should I do?*


Many thanks*
0
reply
Bitesizelaw
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Hello again Efron,

Why do you think that only one of the JTs is holding it on a RT for someone else? I don't see how that is possible. Can you explain a little more please.

Amanda Grant a.k.a. BiteSizeLaw
Last edited by Bitesizelaw; 2 years ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Were exams easier or harder than you expected?

Easier (26)
27.37%
As I expected (29)
30.53%
Harder (34)
35.79%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (6)
6.32%

Watched Threads

View All