Stack v Dowden: CA 13 Jul 2005

The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
Held: In a case where the property has been transferred into joint names, it can usually be taken for granted that each was intended to have some beneficial interest in the property. Ms Dowden’s appeal succeeded, and her interest was declared to be 65% (though had she asked she might have got more). Discussing the case law on trusts of family homes: ‘To the detached observer, the result may seem like a witch’s brew, into which various esoteric ingredients have been stirred over the years, and in which different ideas bubble to the surface at different times. They include implied trust, constructive trust, resulting trust, presumption of advancement, proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment, and so on. These ideas are likely to mean nothing to laymen, and often little more to the lawyers who use them. ‘ (Lord Justice Carnwath)
Chadwick LJ, Varnwath LJ
[2006] 1 FLR 254, [2005] EWCA Civ 857
Bailii
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGoodman v Gallant CA 30-Oct-1985
The court reviewed the conflicting authorities with regard to the creation of trusts and held that the overwhelming preponderance of authority was that, in the absence of any claim for rectification or rescission, provisions in a conveyance . .
CitedOxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
oxley_hiscockCA2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
CitedHuntingford v Hobbs CA 1-Mar-1992
The parties lived together in a property transferred to the woman after her divorce. That house was sold and the defendant contributed the capital. There was a joint mortgage, but the plaintiff alone had an income from which to make payments. The . .
CitedPettitt v Pettitt HL 23-Apr-1969
A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.
Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its . .
CitedRe Gorman ChD 1990
The matrimonial home was in the joint names of husband and wife. After the marriage broke down, the husband left the home, and the wife discharged all mortgage payments (both capital and interest). The husband was adjudicated bankrupt. The wife . .
CitedPassee v Passee 1988
. .
CitedWalker v Hall CA 1984
The court considered the way of distributing property purchased by an unmarried couple: ‘When such a relationship comes to an end, just as with many divorced couples, there are likely to be disputes about the distribution of shared property. How are . .
CitedYoung v Young 1984
. .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
CitedSpringette v Defoe CA 1-Mar-1992
Property was purchased in joint names, but with no express declaration of the beneficial interests. The couple had lived together for a short time as joint tenants of the local authority. They were able to purchase at a substantial discount from the . .
CitedHarwood v Harwood CA 1991
The court rejected the argument that declaring in a transfer of land that the survivor ‘can give a valid receipt for capital money arising on a disposition of the land’ in itself amounts to an express declaration of a beneficial joint tenancy. . .
CitedMortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another ChD 25-Feb-2000
The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromStack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
CitedFowler v Barron CA 23-Apr-2008
fowler_barronCA2008
The parties had lived together for many years but without marrying. The house had been put in joint names, but without specific advice on the issue or any express declaration of trust. In practice Mr Barron made the direct payments for the house and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.228590