Exam 8: Proprietary Estoppel; The Evolution of Rights in the Family Home

In 2015, Marigold bought a house for £215,000 to be the family home for her and Suzy. Having paid all of the purchase price, legal title was vested in Marigold, but she repeatedly assured Suzy that 'you will always have a roof over your head; this home is ours together'. Suzy has been the stay-at-home partner in the relationship, giving up her business as a printer to do so. Suzy used her work settlement to finance an extensive redecoration of the home as well as having the garden landscaped. and decorated the property from top to bottom. Last month, Marigold and Suzy have now split up, citing irreconcilable differences. Suzy wishes to know whether she may have any interest in the house by means of a claim in proprietary estoppel.

Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 suggested that there were two ways for a non-legal owner to acquire an interest in the family home under a constructive trust of common intention. The second limb is where the common intention is to be found from the conduct of the parties alone. Which of the following statements best describes what the courts are looking for here? (Read each answer and think carefully before answering).

Which of the following contributions by a cohabitant may have been seen as a payment to the purchase price of the family home to give rise to a presumption of resulting trust? (Read each statement carefully before answering)

The process of satisfying the equity is one of the most contested areas of an estoppel claim. Which of the following is not an approved approach that the courts have deployed to answer this question?

Which of the following statements is true in relation to the methods by which the courts seek to quantify a beneficial interest in the family home?

Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 suggested that there were two ways for a non-legal owner to acquire an interest in the family home under a constructive trust of common intention. The first was where the parties had reached an agreement that the property should be co-owned, on which the claimant acted to their detriment. Which of the following statements best describes the nature of the agreement the courts are looking for? (Read each answer and think carefully before answering).

In 2015, Katherine bought a house for £185,000 to be the family home for her and Spencer. Having paid all of the purchase price, legal title was vested in Katherine, but she repeatedly assured Spencer that she would always look after him and, whatever the legalities, he should always regard the house as his home. Spencer has paid all the household expenses and decorated the property from top to bottom. Last month, Katherine and Spencer split up. Spencer wishes to know whether he may have any beneficial interest in the house by means of a constructive trust of common intention.

Detriment is an essential element of founding a claim in proprietary estoppel, in that it not simply enough to demonstrate reliance on a representation or assurance of the other owner. Which of the following may not be a form of detrimental reliance that is recognised by the courts?

Which of the following statements is false in relation to the operation of proprietary estoppel in acquiring an interest in the family home?

Which of the following statements is true in relation to the remedy of proprietary estoppel?