Fowkes v Pascoe

Last updated
Fowkes v Pascoe
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citation(s)(1875) LR 10 Ch App 343
Keywords
Resulting trusts

Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) LR 10 Ch App 343 is an English trusts law case, concerning the circumstances when a resulting trust arises.

Contents

Facts

Mrs Baker bought two sums of stock. One was put in the names of herself and a young lodger called Mr Pascoe, who she treated like a grandson. The other was in her and her friend's name. It was argued by the executor, Fowkes, that when Mrs Baker died Pascoe held the stock on resulting trust.

Judgment

James LJ held that although a presumption of a resulting trust applied, it was rebutted on the facts, because plainly Mrs Baker intended to make a gift to Mr Pascoe.

the evidence in favour of a gift and against trust is absolutely conclusive… The lady had £500 to invest; she had already large sums of stock standing in her own name, besides other considerable property. Is it possible to reconcile with mental sanity the theory that she put £250 into the names of herself and her companion, and £250 into the names of herself and [Pascoe], as trustees upon trust for herself? What trust - what object is there conceivable in doing this?

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <i>Emma</i> (novel) 1815 novel by Jane Austen

    Emma, by Jane Austen, is a novel about youthful hubris and romantic misunderstandings. It is set in the fictional country village of Highbury and the surrounding estates of Hartfield, Randalls and Donwell Abbey, and involves the relationships among people from a small number of families. The novel was first published in December 1815, with its title page listing a publication date of 1816. As in her other novels, Austen explores the concerns and difficulties of genteel women living in Georgian–Regency England. Emma is a comedy of manners, and depicts issues of marriage, sex, age, and social status.

    Bliss Knapp American Christian Science teacher, 1877–1958

    Bliss Knapp, the son of Ira O. and Flavia S. Knapp, students of Mary Baker Eddy, was an early Christian Science lecturer, practitioner, teacher and the author of The Destiny of the Mother Church.

    A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or jump back to the transferor. In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts. In common law systems, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts. Another understanding of resulting trusts could be an equitable instrument used to rectify and reverse unjust enrichment.

    <i>Balfour v Balfour</i>

    Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a leading English contract law case. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature.

    <i>D & C Builders Ltd v Rees</i>

    D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] EWCA Civ 3 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of part payment of debt, estoppel, duress and just accord and satisfaction.

    English trust law

    English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is growing legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

    <i>Gissing v Gissing</i>

    Gissing v Gissing [1970] UKHL 3 is an English land law and trust law case dealing with constructive trusts arising in relationships between married couple. It may no longer represent good law, since the decisions of Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.

    <i>The Way We Live Now</i> (2001 TV serial)

    The Way We Live Now is a 2001 four-part television adaptation of the Anthony Trollope 1875 novel The Way We Live Now. The serial was first broadcast on the BBC and was directed by David Yates, written by Andrew Davies and produced by Nigel Stafford-Clark. David Suchet starred as Augustus Melmotte, with Shirley Henderson as his daughter Marie, Matthew Macfadyen as Sir Felix Carbury, Cillian Murphy as Paul Montague and Miranda Otto as Mrs Hurtle.

    <i>Merritt v Merritt</i>

    Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case, on the matter of creating legal relations. While under the principles laid out in Balfour v Balfour, domestic agreements between spouses are rarely legally enforceable, this principle was rebutted where two spouses who formed an agreement over their matrimonial home were not on good terms.

    <i>Hussey v Palmer</i>

    Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal. It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts. It invokes the equitable maxim, "equity regards the substance and not the form."

    <i>Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd (No 2)</i>

    Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1974] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts.

    Resulting trusts in English law

    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.

    Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985] EWCA Civ 6 is an English land law case that holds a person can consent to give up the right to an overriding interest in land, that will bind third parties, such as banks, that purchase a property. Although dealing with unregistered land, it is equally applicable in the case of registered land and now falls under the Land Registration Act 2002.

    <i>Chhokar v Chhokar</i>

    Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313 is an English land law case concerning constructive trusts law and widening the natural meaning of "actual occupation". The facts of the case showed an intention to do a woman out of her occupational interest in a matrimonial home, as the new co-owner buying his share from the husband knew of her situation from the outset and wished to resell the property. The court confirmed in these exact circumstances her interest was overriding at the time when she was in hospital and it was a constructive trust.

    <i>Pennington v Waine</i>

    Pennington v Waine[2002] EWCA Civ 227 is an English trusts law case, concerning the requirements for a trust to be properly constituted, and the operation of constructive trusts. The case represents an equitable exception to the need for a complete transfer of property in law.

    <i>Binions v Evans</i>

    Binions v Evans[1972] EWCA Civ 6 is an English land law and English trusts law case, concerning a constructive trust of land which will often be irrevocable whilst the occupier is in occupation as opposed to a licence to occupy — and/or a tenancy at will which is similar save that without transfer of the underlying property it can be revoked without cause. The case hinged on the fact there was an agreement specifying the existing occupier was to remain.

    <i>Pascoe v Turner</i>

    Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431 is an English land law case, a case of proprietary estoppel.

    Bennet family

    The Bennet family is a fictional family created by the English novelist Jane Austen, in her 1813 novel, Pride and Prejudice. The family consists of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, and their five daughters: Jane, Mary, Catherine, Lydia, and Elizabeth, the novel's protagonist

    Repington v Roberts-Gawen (1881–82) LR 19 Ch D 520 is a leading English trust law case, concerning the requirement of intention to create a trust, and the requisite level of certainty in the beneficiaries.

    <i>CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt</i>

    CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1993] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords relating to undue influence. The decision confirmed that a person did not need to suffer "manifest disadvantage" under a transaction in order to challenge it for actual undue influence.

    References