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

Question 1

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

A) There is no significant difference between constructive trusts of common intention and proprietary estoppel
B) Proprietary estoppel and promissory estoppel are one and the same.
C) Proprietary estoppel may be used to found a case of action, not simply to defend existing rights.
D) Proprietary estoppel is a remedy that is restricted to rights in land only.

Answer 1

C

Question 2

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

A) Improvement of the legal owner's land is evidence from which a change of position in reliance on a representation or assurance may be found.
B) While it is clear that the claimant must rely on the assurance made by the defendant in relation to the property, the extent and nature of the reliance necessary is a question of fact in every case.
C) For a claimant to establish a successful estoppel claim, they must not, for example, have procured the original assurance through a deceitful action.
D) Proprietary estoppel will only successfully be pleaded where the representation or assurance is enforceable as a contractual obligation.

Answer 2

D

Question 3

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?

A) Moving in with the legal owner, and having a child with the same.
B) Working on the property, without receiving adequate remuneration.
C) Living with the legal owner, having given up the rights to a protected tenancy agreement.
D) Carrying out substantial improvements to the family home, which add to the financial value.

Answer 3

A

Question 4

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.

A) Suzy may not have an interest in the house, as Marigold is the legal owner and was the sole purchaser of the house.
B) Suzy may not have any interest in the home, as she has not made sufficient financial contributions during the relationship to found a claim to a mere equity.
C) Suzy may have an interest in the property, as she has changed her position on reliance on the repeated assurances of Marigold that she would be entitled to some rights to the home.
D) Suzy may not have an interest in the home, as the assurances made by Marigold were equivocal and do not suggest any agreement as the nature of any interest in the home.

Question 5

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?

A) The minimum equity to do justice between the parties.
B) Whatever the judge fair and just in all the circumstances of the case.
C) Provide a remedy looking at all the factors present to provide a remedy which ends the dispute between the parties
D) Provide a remedy directly related to the claimant's reasonable expectations

Question 6

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).

A) An imprecise understanding that the property should be shared, based on evidence of any express discussions of the parties.
B) The agreement is effectively a contract between the parties, with the detrimental act of the claimant providing consideration to allow equity to enforce it.
C) The court imputes an agreement from the words used and conduct of the parties during their time in the family home.
D) A representation or assurance from the legal owner, on which the claimant acted to his or her detriment.

Question 7

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)

A) Renovations carried out to the property one year after the property was purchased.
B) Making all the mortgage payments, where a mortgage was used to finance all or part of the purchase price of the property.
C) Paying substantial removal expenses and relocation costs (including solicitor's fees).
D) Advancing part of the purchase money to the legal owner, with the intention that it would later be repaid with interest.

Question 8

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).

A) There must be a direct contribution to the purchase price, which would provide both the common intention and the detriment to acquire an interest in the home.
B) The court will infer a common intention from any conduct that suggests the house should be shared and there is at least a change of position on the basis of this common intention.
C) The court will infer or impute the existence of an interest for the non-legal owner, looking at all aspects of how the parties shared the family home.
D) The net effect of this requirement is that the court will impose an interest where they feel it is 'just and equitable' to do so.

Question 9

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.

A) Spencer may not have an interest in the house, as Katherine is the legal owner and was the sole purchaser of the house.
B) Spencer may have an interest under a common intention constructive trust, on the basis that he relied to his detriment on an express common intention to share the ownership of the home.
C) Spencer will not have an interest in the property, as, in spite of any shared intentions, he has made no contribution to the purchase of the property.
D) Spencer may have an interest in the property, as there is an express common intention demonstrating that he should have an interest in the property.

Question 10

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?

A) The test differs, depending on whether the court is dealing with the situation where the parties are joint legal owners or a sole-legal owner who has acquired an interest in the family home.
B) The court applies the exhaustive list of factors outlined by Lady Hale in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432.
C) The courts will look to infer a common intention from the words and deeds of the parties, but may ultimately impute such an intention on the basis of fairness between the parties.
D) The courts consider only financial contributions in deciding the size of the share. These contributions are not limited to direct contributions to the purchase price, but may include any financial contributions made, such as the costs of raising children or meeting household expenses.