An unmarried couple had lived together, and now disputed its ownership. It had been purchased in the sole name of the woman. The executrix of the will of the woman claimed possession of the house, in which the man was still living. He counterclaimed for a declaration that he was beneficially entitled to it.
Held: The presumption of advancement does not apply as between an unmarried couple living together as husband and wife, where the claimant cannot be heard or allowed to assert his claim to an equitable interest. ‘Here the legal estate was in the testatrix, and the defendant came to the court seeking equitable relief. The equitable presumption of a resulting trust which arose where the purchase-money was provided by someone other than the person taking the legal estate was always rebuttable by evidence of actual intention. The evidence in this case was perfectly plain. The defendant put the house into the name of the testatrix in order to be out of reach of his creditors.’
Judges:
Plowman V-C
Citations:
(1975) 239 EG 121
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Muckleston v Brown 8-May-1801
‘Let the estate lie where it falls.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lowson v Coombes CA 26-Nov-1998
A house was purchased by an unmarried couple to live together, but conveyed into the female partner’s sole name. Her partner was still married, and she feared that on his death his wife would inherit.
Held: ‘the case being one of illegality, I . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Equity
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.236575
