Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

Proprietary estoppel can be used as a basis for legal action, not just as a defense, and can apply to both land and personal property. Option A is incorrect as constructive trusts of common intention and proprietary estoppel are distinct legal concepts. Option B is incorrect as promissory estoppel relates to contractual promises, not property rights. Option D is incorrect as proprietary estoppel can also be applied to personal property.

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?

Accepted Answer

This statement is false. Proprietary estoppel can be pleaded even if the representation or assurance is not enforceable as a contractual obligation. The key element is that the claimant has relied on the representation or assurance to their detriment, and it would be unconscionable for the legal owner to deny them an interest in the property.

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?

Accepted Answer

Moving in with the legal owner and having a child with them may be seen as a personal relationship and not necessarily detrimental reliance in the context of proprietary estoppel. The other options listed all demonstrate a form of detrimental reliance.

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.

Accepted Answer

Suzy may have a claim in proprietary estoppel as she has changed her position in reliance on Marigold's repeated assurances that the home would be theirs together. Suzy gave up her business to be the stay-at-home partner and also financed an extensive redecoration of the home. Marigold's assurances created an expectation for Suzy that she would have rights to the home, and it would be unfair for Marigold to now deny Suzy any interest in the property.

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?

Accepted Answer

This is not an approved approach that the courts have deployed to answer the question of satisfying the equity in an estoppel claim. The correct approaches are A, C, and D, which are to provide a remedy based on the minimum equity to do justice between the parties, looking at all the factors present to provide a remedy which ends the dispute between the parties, or providing 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).

Accepted Answer

The answer of Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset...

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)

Accepted Answer

Making all the mortgage payments, where a mortgage was used to finance all or part of the purchase price of the property, may be seen as a contribution towards the purchase price of the family home and give rise to a presumption of resulting trust. Renovations carried out to the property one year after the property was purchased, paying removal expenses and relocation costs, and advancing part of the purchase money to the legal owner with the intention of it being repaid with interest are not necessarily contributions towards the purchase price of the family home.

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).

Accepted Answer

Lord Bridge indicated that a direct financial contribution to the purchase price is necessary to infer a common intention and detriment for a constructive trust.

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.

Accepted Answer

Spencer may have an interest in the property under a common intention constructive trust. Although Katherine is the legal owner and sole purchaser of the property, her repeated assurances to Spencer that he should always regard the house as his home could demonstrate a common intention to share the ownership. Additionally, Spencer's payment of household expenses and decoration of the property could be seen as detrimental reliance on this common intention. Therefore, a court may find that a constructive trust should be imposed in favor of Spencer.

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?

Accepted Answer

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. This was established in the case of Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1991] 1 AC 107, and reaffirmed in Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432. The court will consider a wide range of factors to determine the size of the share, including financial contributions, but these are not the only factors considered.

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