Hubbry Logo
Resulting trustResulting trustMain
Open search
Resulting trust
Community hub
Resulting trust
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Resulting trust
Resulting trust
Resulting trust
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to hold the property for the benefit of another person.

Key Information

The trust property is said to "result" or revert to the transferor (as an implied settlor). This use of "result" means spring back:[1] on the face of it the property in question has been transferred to the recipient (and indeed it has come into the recipient's legal ownership), but the legal owner is not permitted to benefit from it, and so beneficial ownership of the property springs back to the settlor.

Not all trusts where the settlor is also the beneficiary are resulting trusts. In common law systems, express trusts that clearly state the settlor as the beneficiary are typically not considered resulting trusts.[2]

Beneficial Interest and Outcome

[edit]

The beneficial interest results to the settlor, or if the settlor has died, to the settlor's estate. This concept is illustrated in the case of Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967],[3] where the beneficial interest vanishes while the beneficiary interest remains.

[edit]

Some jurisdictions might establish a rebuttable presumption of gift for property transfers between relatives. This presumption could serve as an affirmative defense in petitions to establish a resulting trust implied by operation of law.

The law presumes that transferring property to a family member, particularly for supporting a relative, is legitimate. However, when an unrelated party receives substantial value without providing consideration, it's usually presumed that they hold the property in trust for the transferor, unless proven as a gift. This presumption of gift applies to transfers between siblings, uncles, aunts, children, and grandchildren.

An exception to the presumption of gift is property transfers between spouses. This exception arises from the fiduciary duty spouses owe each other, based on a special trusted relationship implying utmost good faith and fair dealing. Spouses are generally incapable of transmuting property, except under specific circumstances where they make an EXPRESS DECLARATION of transmutation through a clear statement in a dignified document.[4]

Unlawful Purpose

[edit]

In common law jurisdictions, a resulting trust is an equitable creation, rather than a common law concept. Consequently, equitable defenses like laches, unclean hands, and the duty to do equity may be recognized in some jurisdictions. For instance, if a transferor conveys property for an unlawful purpose and benefits from it, a court might rule that the transferor has waived the right to claim a resulting trust. Courts in these situations balance the transferee's unjust enrichment against enabling cheating by the transferor. Allowing a cheater to gain from such transactions would undermine the court's integrity.

Other jurisdictions might disregard an unlawful purpose.

In scenarios involving illegality, distinguishing the implementation of a resulting trust theory (implied by operation of law) from an oral express trust (implied by facts) can become difficult. A transferor failing under one theory might still succeed under the other.

Resulting Trusts in English Law

[edit]
Main article: Resulting trusts in English law

Classification

[edit]

An attempt to classify resulting trusts was made by Megarry J in Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) [1974] Ch 269. According to Megarry J, there are two sorts of resulting trusts in English law.

Presumptive Resulting Trusts

[edit]

These trusts arise when A transfers property to B, and the law creates a rebuttable presumption of a resulting trust if A's intention is unclear (absence of written evidence).

For instance, if A transfers property to B, except when the transfer is between parents and children or spouses, the law presumes a resulting trust for A in the absence of evidence to the contrary (unless A provides evidence that the property is actually owned by B).

The main categories of fact situations giving rise to a presumption of a resulting trust are: - A voluntary conveyance of property by A to B - A monetary contribution by A to purchase property for B (The Venture, [1908] P 218, (1907) 77 L.J.P. 105.)

These presumptions are rebuttable. In Fowkes v Pascoe,[5] evidence was presented that a woman had purchased stock in the names of herself and her grandson; the grandson and granddaughter-in-law's evidence that this was a gift was admissible. However, the presumption only considers an intention to create a trust, not ulterior motives. Tinsley v Milligan[6] exemplifies this, where fraudulent intent didn't defeat the presumption of a resulting trust.

Voluntary Transfer of Land

[edit]

Despite the general presumption of resulting trust, this doesn't apply to voluntary transfers of land due to the Law of Property Act 1925 s.60(3). However, the court can still consider extrinsic evidence to establish the creation of a trust.

Automatic Resulting Trusts

[edit]

These trusts take effect by operation of law and are automatic. They can arise when a settlor sets up a trust for a third party, but there's an initial failure due to the lack of defined beneficiaries or changing objectives.

For example, when the settlor names beneficiaries who can't be defined, as in Morice v Bishop of Durham, or when trust objectives become impossible or irrelevant by the time of the transfer, as in Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund.

Some academics suggest automatic resulting trusts arise only when a property has been transferred to a trustee on an express trust, where the trustee has legal title to the property, to be held on trust for the settlor.

Settlor's Intention in Automatic Resulting Trusts

[edit]

In relation to automatic resulting trusts, there's some difference in expressing the nature of the settlor's intention: - According to Westdeutsche, Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that a resulting trust arises due to a legal "presumed intention to create a trust in favor of the settlor". - It's also suggested that the trust arises from a "lack of intention to benefit the recipient". This could be referred to as the Chambers Model of intention, where the settlor intends to retain the beneficial interest in the property but transfers the legal title.

Differentiating between a positive intention to retain beneficial interest and a lack of intention to benefit the transferee is significant. It's often harder to prove intention than to establish the circumstances for a legal presumption. Rebutting a presumption might be easier than disproving intention.

Resulting Trusts in South Africa

[edit]

In South Africa, there's no doctrine of resulting trusts. The main remedy, if any trust purposes fail, would be as an unjust enrichment, as seen in Westdeutsche Landesbank v Council of London Borough of Islington.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Resulting trust

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A resulting trust is an implied trust arising by operation of law in equity, whereby the beneficial interest in property reverts to the original transferor or settlor due to a lack of consideration in the transfer or the failure of an express trust to exhaust the beneficial interest. Resulting trusts serve as a remedial mechanism in common law jurisdictions to prevent unjust enrichment, presuming that the transferor did not intend to make an outright gift unless evidence proves otherwise. They differ from constructive trusts, which are imposed to remedy wrongdoing, by focusing instead on implied intentions or automatic reversion without requiring fault. Historically, the doctrine evolved from early English equity principles post-Statute of Uses in 1535, with foundational cases like Dyer v. Dyer (1788) establishing the presumption that property purchased by one person but titled in another's name creates a trust for the purchaser. There are two primary categories of resulting trusts: presumed and automatic. Presumed resulting trusts arise from the transferor's presumed intent, such as in purchase money scenarios where one party provides the funds for property acquisition but legal title is placed in another's name, or in voluntary transfers of without , rebuttable by evidence of a (e.g., the presumption of advancement in parent-child transfers). Automatic resulting trusts, by contrast, occur independently of intent when an fails entirely or partially—due to uncertainty of terms, illegality, or exhaustion of beneficial interests—causing the undistributed interest to revert to the settlor's estate. In practice, resulting trusts are enforced through parol evidence in many jurisdictions, as they fall outside strict requirements for land, allowing courts to examine extrinsic intentions. Key modern applications include family property disputes, joint bank accounts, and failed settlements, as seen in cases like Vandervell v. Commissioners (1967), which clarified reversion in incomplete trust dispositions. While the doctrine remains robust, rebuttals based on contemporary evidence of intent continue to shape its application, ensuring equity aligns with the parties' probable wishes.

Definition and Core Principles

Definition

A resulting trust is an implied trust that arises by operation of law when property is transferred to a recipient without the transferor's intention to benefit that recipient, or when an express trust fails completely or partially, causing the beneficial interest to revert to the settlor. This mechanism ensures that the beneficial ownership aligns with the presumed or inferred intent of the parties involved in the transaction. As an equitable remedy, the resulting trust prevents unjust enrichment by enforcing the true ownership intentions behind a legal transfer, rooted in the longstanding equity maxim that equity regards as done that which ought to be done. Key characteristics include, for presumed resulting trusts, reliance on the implied intention of the transferor or settlor at the time of the transfer, rather than any express declaration; automatic resulting trusts, however, arise automatically upon failure without reference to intention. While traditionally viewed as based on implied intentions, modern scholarship debates whether automatic resulting trusts serve a restitutionary purpose to reverse unjust enrichment rather than effectuate intent. The doctrine originated in 17th-century English equity courts, evolving from the medieval concept of "uses"—devices employed to hold land for another's benefit—to safeguard against and ensure equitable outcomes in dispositions. Unlike constructive trusts, which impose obligations due to unconscionable conduct rather than inferred intent, resulting trusts focus solely on effectuating the parties' presumed wishes.

Beneficial Interest

In a resulting trust, the beneficial interest in the property reverts to the original transferor or settlor, leaving the trustee or nominal owner with legal title only, as equity presumes no intention to make an outright gift unless rebutted. This reversion ensures that the provider of the property retains equitable ownership, preventing an unintended disposition. The extent of the beneficial interest varies by type of resulting trust. In presumed resulting trusts, arising from voluntary transfers or contributions to purchase price, the interest is proportional to the contributor's financial input, reflecting the presumed intention to retain a share equivalent to the amount provided. For instance, if A contributes 40% of the purchase price for land titled solely in B's name, A holds a 40% beneficial interest under the trust, subject to rebuttal by evidence of gift. In contrast, automatic resulting trusts, which occur upon failure of an express trust or where beneficial interests are unallocated, result in full reversion of the interest to the settlor, provided the property has not been dissipated or applied contrary to the original purpose. This beneficial interest has significant implications for co-ownership arrangements, where it overlays the legal title to establish equitable shares based on contributions, allowing the beneficiary to assert rights against the itself. It facilitates tracing of assets in equity, enabling recovery of the beneficiary's proportionate share even if the property has been substituted or mixed with other funds, as seen in cases where premiums contributed to an yield traceable proceeds. A classic example is where A transfers to B without or declaration of trust; B then holds the legal title on resulting trust for A, who retains the full beneficial interest. Such interests underpin equitable outcomes, including remedies like tracing and claims to enforce the trust.

Equitable Outcomes

Resulting trusts serve as an equitable mechanism to achieve fair outcomes by addressing situations where is transferred without an to benefit the recipient (presumed trusts) or where an fails to fully dispose of the beneficial (automatic trusts), thereby preventing at the expense of the original provider. The primary in such cases is a declaration of trust, which recognizes the reversion of the beneficial to the provider and compels the recipient to hold the on trust accordingly. This remedy ensures that the provider's equitable is restored, often without altering the legal title, as equity intervenes solely to adjust beneficial . In addition to declarations, courts may impose an account of profits, requiring the recipient to disgorge any gains derived from the property to reverse the obtained. Equitable compensation is available for breaches related to the trust, such as misuse of the property, focusing on restoring the provider to the position they would have occupied absent the breach, though it remains distinct from damages by prioritizing restitution over punishment. These remedies underscore equity's role in restitution, where the beneficial interest reverts automatically upon recognition of the trust, providing a basis for recovery. In practice, resulting trusts effectively prevent by facilitating the return of or its traceable proceeds to the provider, even against third parties who acquire the asset, provided the third party is not a for value without notice. Tracing allows the to follow the into substituted assets if it remains identifiable, thereby extending protection beyond the immediate recipient and enhancing the remedial efficacy of the trust. However, this proprietary remedy is limited if the property has been dissipated or rendered , in which case the trust may fail, leaving the provider to pursue personal claims if available. The doctrine further restricts relief, as equity demands that the provider approach the court with , barring remedies where the claimant's conduct involves or . A foundational governing these outcomes is that equity follows the , meaning the legal remains vested in the (the original recipient) unless explicitly transferred, with equity merely superimposing the beneficial interest to achieve without disrupting legal formalities. This deference ensures that resulting trusts operate harmoniously with legal ownership rules, promoting certainty while remedying inequitable enrichments.

Types of Resulting Trusts

Presumed Resulting Trusts

Presumed resulting trusts arise by from a rebuttable that the provider of intended to retain a beneficial interest in it, rather than to make an outright to the recipient. This is inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transfer, particularly where the provider has contributed to the acquisition of without receiving in return. Unlike automatic resulting trusts, which operate irrespective of the parties' intentions to fill gaps in failed express trusts, presumed resulting trusts focus on evidence of the provider's presumed intent to prevent of the recipient. The is typically triggered in two general scenarios: voluntary transfers of to another without , or situations where one party provides part or all of the purchase price for registered in another's name, leading to an inference of a proportionate beneficial interest returning to the provider. This mechanism reflects equity's role in effectuating the provider's negative —not to benefit the recipient beneficially—based on common human experience that such transfers are not intended as gifts absent contrary evidence. The strength of the varies by ; it is more readily applied and harder to rebut in arm's-length or non-familial relationships, where gratuitous transfers are less likely to be , compared to familial settings where the presumption of advancement (treating the transfer as a gift) may weaken or displace it. For instance, transfers between strangers or associates strongly presume a resulting trust, while parent-child transfers often presume a unless rebutted. The evidentiary burden begins with the claimant establishing the factual basis of the transfer or contribution, after which the shifts the onus to the recipient to provide clear rebutting it, such as proof of donative intent.

Automatic Resulting Trusts

Automatic resulting trusts arise whenever an fails to dispose effectively of the in the , either in its entirety or in part. This automatic operation ensures that equitable title does not remain in , adhering to the principle that equity abhors a in . For instance, an entire may occur due to in the trust's terms, while a partial might result from surplus remaining after the trust's specified purposes have been fully satisfied. Unlike presumed resulting trusts, which depend on an evidentiary of the transferor's intention, automatic resulting trusts require no such and are non-rebuttable, stemming directly from the incomplete disposition of the . They are imposed irrespective of the parties' intentions regarding the failed trust, focusing instead on the legal necessity to reallocate undesignated . In these circumstances, the beneficial interest reverts fully or proportionally to the ; if the settlor has died, it accrues to their estate. This reversion prevents the property from escheating to as bona vacantia and upholds the foundational equitable rule that beneficial title must reside somewhere validly. Automatic resulting trusts are distinctly limited to scenarios of inherent failure or incompleteness in the express trust's structure, rather than applying to voluntary dissolutions or terminations where the or trustees intentionally wind up the arrangement. This scope maintains the trust's integrity by addressing only those gaps arising from defective creation or execution, without extending to elective endings.

Presumed Resulting Trusts

Voluntary Transfers of Property

A presumed resulting trust arises upon the voluntary transfer of without , whereby the recipient is presumed to hold the beneficial on trust for the transferor, reflecting equity's reluctance to assume an intention to make an outright absent clear evidence to the contrary. This doctrine ensures that the transferor's equitable "results" or returns to them unless rebutted, applying equally to such as money and chattels, where the full presumption operates without statutory qualification. The principle extends to transfers of land, though qualified by statute. Section 60(3) of the provides that, in a voluntary conveyance, a resulting trust for the grantor shall not be implied merely because the property is not expressed to be conveyed for the use or benefit of the grantee, thereby preventing an automatic presumption based solely on the form of the conveyance. Nonetheless, the presumption may still be invoked where the circumstances of the transfer indicate retention of beneficial interest by the transferor. Regarding formalities, section 53(1)(b) of the same Act mandates that a declaration of trust respecting land be manifested in writing signed by the declarant, but resulting trusts—arising by rather than declaration—are expressly exempt under section 53(2), enabling the presumption to substantiate claims even on oral or . The presumption is rebuttable by demonstrating the transferor's to confer on the recipient as a . Such might include contemporaneous statements, conduct, or contextual factors suggesting donative intent, particularly where outright gifts are conventionally expected. The foundational authority for this rebuttable presumption in voluntary contexts is Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92, where Eyre CB affirmed that equity presumes a trust upon transfer without unless a contrary appears, a rule originating in the equitable treatment of nominees holding title for the provider of value.

Contributions to Purchase Price

A presumed resulting trust arises when one party contributes to the of , but the legal title is vested in another party's name, leading to a that the contributor retains a beneficial proportional to their financial input. This principle, established in the seminal case of Dyer v Dyer (1788), holds that "the trust of a legal estate... results... to the man who advances the unless rebuts the by showing an intention to the contribution. The doctrine applies particularly to joint purchases involving unequal contributions, where the legal title may be in one name or joint names but the shares are not equal. In such scenarios, the beneficial interest is presumed to reflect the proportions of the purchase price each party provided, creating tenants in common rather than a joint tenancy. However, if contributions to the purchase price are equal and the property is conveyed into joint names, there is no presumption of a resulting trust; instead, a beneficial joint tenancy is presumed, with each party entitled to an equal undivided share. Quantification of the beneficial share under a presumed resulting trust is limited to direct financial contributions made at the time of purchase, such as deposits, initial capital payments, or agreed portions of the upfront cost. Indirect or subsequent contributions, including ongoing repayments, improvements to the , or non-financial inputs like or household labor, do not qualify for this presumption, distinguishing it from broader considerations in constructive trusts. A key illustration is Bull v Bull 1 QB 234, where a contributed £650 toward the £3,000 purchase price of a house, with her son providing the balance, but the legal title was placed solely in the son's name. The Court of Appeal held that the son held the property on resulting trust for himself and his as tenants in common, with her beneficial share proportionate to her contribution (approximately 22%), entitling her to occupy the property until its sale. In cases involving transfers of property between closely related parties, such as parents and children or spouses, the presumption of resulting trust may be displaced by the counter-presumption of advancement, which assumes the transfer was intended as an outright rather than a trust. This presumption arises due to the natural obligation perceived in such relationships to provide for dependents, thereby shifting the to the transferor to prove otherwise. It applies particularly to transfers from a to his , a person standing to a , or a to his , reflecting historical equitable principles rooted in familial duties. The scope of the presumption of advancement remains limited in modern English law to married spouses and civil partners, following its extension under the to include the latter on similar terms to spouses. It does not extend to unmarried cohabitants, whether heterosexual or same-sex, nor to relationships such as a to her or a to her child, preserving a gendered and relational specificity despite calls for reform. Although section 199 of the provides for its abolition to eliminate discriminatory elements, this provision has not yet been commenced and thus the presumption persists in its traditional form. This limitation affects scenarios like contributions to in purchases, where the relational may invoke the presumption and presume a absent . The can be rebutted by clear demonstrating that no was intended, such as documentary proof indicating the transfer was a or subject to a resulting trust. Contemporary documents, contemporaneous declarations, or acts consistent with retention of beneficial interest—such as retaining deeds or records—carry significant weight, while subsequent statements are admissible only against the maker. In Tinker v Tinker P 136, a husband transferred property to his wife on to shield it from potential business creditors, but the court held that of an unlawful purpose could not be relied upon to rebut the ; thus, the transfer was treated as an advancement, and the wife retained the beneficial interest. This case underscores that rebuttal requires untainted, objective of the transferor's true intention at the time of the transfer.

Illegality and Unlawful Purpose

In the context of presumed resulting trusts arising from voluntary transfers of , illegality can serve as a bar to enforcement if the transfer was made for an unlawful purpose, such as . Under the established principle from Tinsley v Milligan 1 AC 340, no resulting trust will be recognized where the claimant must rely on their own illegal conduct to establish their in the . In that case, the held that a claimant who contributed to the purchase price of a but placed in another's name to facilitate social security fraud could not enforce the trust, as proving the contribution required reference to the underlying illegality. This reliance-based approach prioritizes against aiding unlawful schemes while preserving proprietary rights where illegality is not invoked. Subsequent developments have reformed this strict rule, particularly following the Supreme Court's decision in UKSC 42, which introduced a discretionary framework for the illegality defence in equitable claims, including those involving resulting trusts. Courts now evaluate whether denying relief would be proportionate, considering factors such as the seriousness of the illegality, the centrality of the unlawful purpose to the transaction, and broader implications; if reliance on the illegality would be unconscionable, a constructive trust may be imposed instead to achieve a just outcome. This shift departs from Tinsley's rigid reliance test, which was criticized for producing arbitrary results, and allows greater flexibility in post-2010 cases. A key distinction arises where the claimant is unaware of the unlawful purpose underlying the transfer, in which case the illegality defence may not bar the resulting trust, as the claimant does not rely on or plead the illegal act to assert their interest. For instance, in scenarios involving mistaken or innocent contributions to purchases, equity permits enforcement without implicating the claimant's . The overarching policy rationale balances the deterrence of criminal or unlawful conduct with equity's role in preventing unjust enrichment and upholding legitimate expectations. As articulated in Patel v Mirza, the defence should not operate as a blanket exclusion but as a tool to serve the public interest, avoiding overkill that disproportionately harms innocent parties or undermines fairness. This approach ensures that while unlawful purposes are not rewarded, equitable remedies remain available where denial of relief would contravene justice.

Automatic Resulting Trusts

Failure of Express Trusts

An automatic resulting trust arises when an fails, causing the beneficial interest in the trust property (or the undisposed portion thereof) to revert to the or their estate by . This mechanism ensures that property does not remain in limbo without a defined beneficial owner, reflecting the default equitable that the did not intend an outright gift of the undisposed interest. Total failure occurs when the express trust is entirely invalid from the outset, such as due to conceptual uncertainty in identifying the beneficiaries or purposes, leading the entire trust property to revert via resulting trust. Conceptual uncertainty exists where the terms defining the class of beneficiaries are inherently unclear and incapable of precise definition, rendering the trust void; for instance, in Re Astor's Settlement Trusts Ch 534, a non-charitable purpose trust for maintaining "good relations between nations" and similar abstract aims failed for lack of identifiable beneficiaries and conceptual vagueness, resulting in the property reverting to the settlor's estate. In contrast, administrative uncertainty—concerning practical difficulties in locating or distributing to beneficiaries—does not void the trust if the conceptual boundaries are ascertainable, as trustees may exercise discretion or seek court guidance to administer it. Evidential uncertainty, where potential beneficiaries can be identified but evidence of membership is lacking, similarly preserves the trust's validity. Partial failure takes place when only a portion of the trust fails, often after primary purposes have been fulfilled, causing the surplus or undisposed share to result back to the . A representative example is Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund Ch 300, where public donations were collected for specific relief to victims of a bus and their families, but excess funds remained after those aims were met due to vague additional purposes like "other worthy causes," which introduced non-charitable elements and uncertainty; the court held that the surplus reverted to the original donors (or their estates) under a resulting trust, rejecting claims to bona vacantia. However, no failure—and thus no resulting trust—arises in charitable trusts where a cy-près scheme can be applied under the Charities Act 2011, allowing courts or the Charity Commission to modify the purposes to a sufficiently similar charitable objective when the original becomes impossible, impracticable, or ineffective, thereby preserving the trust.

Surplus Property in Trusts

In automatic resulting trusts, surplus property occurs when an express trust's specified purposes are exhausted, leaving undistributed assets within the trust. The beneficial interest in this surplus automatically reverts to the (or their estate if deceased), as the trust has failed to fully dispose of the entire beneficial interest transferred to the trustees. This reversion prevents the surplus from in the beneficiaries or escheating as bona vacantia, reflecting equity's that the did not intend an outright gift of the excess. Such surpluses commonly arise in overfunded private trusts, where the settled property exceeds the needs outlined for beneficiaries, or in unspent funds from purpose trusts after the objective is fulfilled. For example, a trust created to cover a beneficiary's living expenses during might leave remaining capital upon , which would then result back to the . Similarly, unspent charitable funds in a partially executed purpose—where the charitable status does not trigger cy-près application—may revert via resulting trust if the original intent limits disposition to the specified aim. Equity facilitates identification and recovery of surplus property through tracing rules, allowing to be followed even if mixed with other trust holdings or converted into new forms, as long as proprietary traces remain discernible. This upholds the settlor's position by prioritizing the original contribution over subsequent accretions or intermixtures.

Role of Settlor's Intention

In automatic resulting trusts, equity presumes that the intends to retain the beneficial in any not validly disposed of to the intended beneficiaries, ensuring no gap in ownership arises from the failure of an . This presumption operates automatically by , reflecting the settlor's underlying intent to create a valid trust while preventing the from benefiting personally without clear direction. It is rebuttable, however, where extrinsic evidence shows the did not intend retention, such as through indications that the trustees should hold the beneficially. A resulting trust will not arise if the settlor subjectively intended an absolute gift to the recipient or the complete of the beneficial interest, as this demonstrates a deliberate to relinquish all equitable . In such cases, the absence of any retained interest precludes the automatic reversion, prioritizing the settlor's manifested will over default equitable rules. The modern view underscores the paramount role of the settlor's subjective intention, as established in Vandervell v IRC 2 AC 291, where the House of Lords ruled that a resulting trust arises automatically when the settlor fails to divest the beneficial interest effectively, but only to give effect to the settlor's presumed intent to retain it absent a valid transfer. Lord Upjohn emphasized that "if [the settlor] fails to give [the beneficial interest] away effectively... there will, by operation of law, be a resulting trust for him," highlighting intention's foundational influence despite the trust's automatic nature. This approach was reaffirmed by Lord Millett in Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton 1 WLR 1399, who observed that a resulting trust "arises by operation of law, though unlike a constructive trust it gives effect to intention." Despite this emphasis on , it cannot override the automatic imposition of a resulting trust where the is invalid due to or other defects, as the trust then serves as an irrebuttable default to return the interest to the . Lord Wilberforce in Vandervell reinforced this limitation, stating that the "cannot remain in the air: the consequence... must be that it remains in the ."

Resulting Trusts in English Law

Historical Development

The concept of resulting trusts originated in the equitable jurisdiction of the during the 17th century, evolving from the medieval device of "uses" as a means to circumvent the rigidities of rules. Following the Statute of Uses 1535, which sought to execute passive uses by vesting legal estates directly in beneficiaries and thereby reducing feudal revenues for , equity courts began enforcing active uses where trustees managed for beneficiaries' benefit. This development ensured that beneficial interests could revert to the original owner—forming the basis of resulting trusts—when intended dispositions failed or were incomplete, distinguishing legal title from equitable ownership. By the 19th century, resulting trusts were solidified through judicial recognition of presumptive and automatic varieties, with Dyer v Dyer (1788) establishing the key that a gratuitous transfer of property raises a resulting trust in favor of the provider unless rebutted by evidence of intent to . This addressed uncertainties in familial and voluntary transfers, reflecting equity's focus on presumed . The distinction between presumed resulting trusts (based on of intent) and automatic ones (arising mechanically from failed express trusts) was further clarified in the , notably in Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2) , which emphasized that automatic resulting trusts operate independently of intention to fill gaps in . Statutory reforms in the late influenced resulting trusts involving , particularly through the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, which replaced the former trust for sale with the more flexible trust of , abolished the doctrine of conversion, and extended powers to trustees and beneficiaries in implied trusts like resulting ones. This act streamlined property management under resulting trusts by applying uniformly to express, implied, resulting, and constructive trusts affecting , effective from 1997. In the , has shifted emphasis from strict presumptions rooted in retention of beneficial interest toward integrating resulting trusts with principles of , viewing them as mechanisms to reverse enrichment obtained without justification. This evolution critiques older fictions of retained equity, advocating for resulting trusts to respond to failures in disposition or unintended benefits, as explored in contemporary scholarship that aligns them with restitutionary remedies while retaining automatic types for gap-filling.

Classification and Key Cases

In , resulting trusts are classified into two primary categories, as articulated by Megarry J in Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2) Ch 269. The first category comprises presumed resulting trusts, which arise from the voluntary transfer of to another or from a contribution to the purchase price of held in the name of another, based on a rebuttable that the transferor did not intend to make an outright . The second category consists of automatic resulting trusts, which operate by without reliance on , typically when an fails for uncertainty or when there is surplus trust after the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled. This classification underscores that presumed resulting trusts depend on inferred intentions, while automatic ones fill gaps in beneficial ownership irrespective of specific intent. In Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC AC 669, the House of Lords affirmed that all resulting trusts, including automatic ones, are founded on the common intention of the parties rather than as a remedy for unjust enrichment, rejecting arguments to extend them to cover restitutionary claims arising from void contracts. Lord Browne-Wilkinson emphasized that a resulting trust requires an intention to create a beneficial interest that reverts to the transferor, and no such trust arose where the bank paid money to the council under an ultra vires interest rate swap, as the payment was intended to confer absolute beneficial ownership on the recipient. The in Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton 1 WLR 1399 further clarified the distinction between resulting and constructive trusts in the context of surplus funds in a dissolved scheme. Lord Millett held that an automatic resulting trust arose over the surplus for the original contributors due to the absence of any to benefit the employer, distinguishing this from a constructive trust, which would be imposed irrespective of to prevent unconscionable retention based on policy considerations. This case reinforced that resulting trusts address evidentiary gaps in the settlor's intentions, whereas constructive trusts respond to equitable wrongs or imperatives, such as . English courts apply the civil standard of proof—balance of probabilities—to evidentiary matters in presumed resulting trusts, placing the burden on the legal owner to rebut the with of a contrary , such as an outright or . This standard ensures flexibility, allowing like contemporaneous documents or witness testimony to displace the , while maintaining the trust's role in protecting inferred ownership interests.

Modern Applications

In contemporary , resulting trusts have seen a marked decline in their application within , particularly concerning the ownership of the family home. Following the landmark decision in UKHL 17, courts have increasingly favored constructive trusts based on common intention over the traditional presumption of resulting trusts arising from contributions to . This shift reflects a recognition that the presumption of resulting trust is ill-suited to modern cohabiting relationships, where equitable adjustments prioritize inferred intentions rather than strict proportional contributions, rendering resulting trusts largely redundant in such disputes. For instance, in cases involving unmarried couples, the judiciary now typically infers a constructive trust to achieve fairness, sidelining resulting trusts unless clear evidence rebuts the common intention framework. In commercial contexts, resulting trusts maintain significant utility through the specialized form known as Quistclose trusts, which arise when funds are advanced for a specific purpose, such as a loan restricted to a particular use. If the purpose fails, the funds result back to the lender as a resulting trust, providing a quasi-security mechanism that protects creditors in insolvency scenarios. These trusts are described as "the single most important application of equitable principles in commercial life," facilitating purpose-limited transactions like dividend payments or project financing while allowing borrowers limited control over the assets. Recent cases continue to affirm their role, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of the restricted purpose to invoke the resulting trust over the borrower's general assets. Post- developments, including those after , have introduced no substantial reforms to the of resulting trusts in , with EU influences on cross-border trusts remaining minimal due to the retained framework governing domestic applications. English courts continue to apply resulting trusts independently of EU regulations, unaffected in core principles by the withdrawal, though enforcement of judgments involving international trusts may face procedural hurdles under rules. Scholars and jurists have critiqued the over-reliance on presumptions in resulting trusts as outdated, arguing that they fail to align with contemporary emphases on actual intentions and principles. The presumed resulting trust, rooted in historical fictions of non-donative intent, is seen as doctrinally indefensible in modern contexts, prompting calls for a more direct intention-based analysis to replace evidentiary presumptions. This push aligns with broader equitable trends, such as those in constructive trusts, advocating for reforms that prioritize the settlor's or transferor's demonstrable purpose over rigid defaults.

Resulting Trusts in Other Jurisdictions

Developments in Other Common Law Countries

In , resulting trusts have evolved in tandem with constructive trusts, particularly in addressing failures of common intention or joint ventures. The landmark case of Muschinski v Dodds HCA 78 established that while a of resulting trust may arise from unequal contributions to acquisition, it can be rebutted by evidence of the parties' shared intentions for . In that case, the dismissed the resulting trust claim due to the intended equal division but imposed a remedial constructive trust to prevent , adjusting beneficial interests proportionally to contributions after the joint endeavor failed. This approach effectively merges resulting and constructive trusts in scenarios of unconscionable retention, diverging from stricter English categorizations by prioritizing equitable remedies over rigid presumptions. Canadian law on resulting trusts closely mirrors English principles as a default mechanism for gratuitous transfers, presuming the transferor retains beneficial interest unless rebutted, though application varies by province due to decentralized trust administration. Provincial courts, such as those in and , routinely apply the presumption of resulting trust in family property disputes, emphasizing the transferor's intent over formalities. However, following the federal legalization of under the in 2005, the traditional presumption of advancement—which historically presumed gifts from husband to wife—does not extend to same-sex couples, as its gendered basis conflicts with marital equality, leading courts to rely more on direct evidence of intention or claims instead. This shift has prompted provincial reforms, such as amendments to British Columbia's Family Law Act via Bill 17 in 2023, which explicitly exclude the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement in determining spousal property ownership, prioritizing actual contributions and evidence of intent in equitable divisions for all couples. In the United States, resulting trusts receive limited formal recognition, primarily as implied-in-fact trusts under state equity laws to effectuate unexpressed intentions, rather than as a standalone doctrine. State courts impose them in cases of failed express trusts or where purchase money contributions suggest no intent to benefit the holder, but they are often subsumed within broader restitutionary remedies. The Restatement (Third) of Trusts §7 defines a resulting trust as a reversionary arising automatically upon trust failure or incomplete disposition, reverting property to the or estate without requiring judicial intervention beyond recognition. Unlike in , U.S. jurisdictions emphasize statutory codes and vary widely, with some states like treating them as enforceable only against specific intent evidence to avoid fraud. Across these jurisdictions, a notable trend involves the expansion of remedial constructive trusts, which has diminished the independent role of resulting trusts in resolving equitable claims like . In and , courts increasingly favor constructive trusts as flexible remedies to adjust rights post-failure, reducing reliance on resulting trusts' presumptive mechanics. This remedial focus aligns with broader developments prioritizing prevention of over automatic reversion, though resulting trusts persist for clear intent-based reversions.

References

  1. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/resulting-trust
  2. https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/the-doctrine-of-resulting-trusts-in-common-law-canada/
  3. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3620&context=klj
  4. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2022-10/Lifetime%2520Wealth%2520Transfers%2520and%2520the%2520Equitable%2520Presumptions%2520of%2520Resulting%2520Trust%2520and%2520Gift.pdf
  5. https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=tlr
  6. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1836&context=akronlawreview
  7. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3555&context=umlr
  8. https://www.academia.edu/144857532/16_Resulting_and_constructive_trusts
  9. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4356&context=smulr
  10. https://www.digestiblenotes.com/law/trusts/resulting_trusts.php
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3052141
  12. https://blackwells.co.uk/extracts/9780199285358_pearce.pdf
  13. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/dyer-v-dyer-1788.php
  14. https://academic.oup.com/book/10848/chapter/159054844
  15. https://core.ac.uk/download/346487953.pdf
  16. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/stack-2.htm
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal/article/presumed-resulting-trusts-intention-and-declaration/6E31B6B6FB35F73371528E16DFA77A72
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/equity-and-trusts-in-australia/resulting-trusts/C6CD6B903B3E54857D7933474A432DCA
  19. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/resulting-trusts
  20. https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/automatic-resulting-trust
  21. https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/resulting-trusts
  22. https://academic.oup.com/book/10848/chapter/159031792
  23. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/60
  24. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/53
  25. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/stack-3.htm
  26. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/bull-v-bull.php
  27. https://www.wellerslawgroup.com/insights/estate-planning-presumption-of-advancement/
  28. https://www.brookman.co.uk/news/legal-right-jewellery-purchased-gift
  29. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/a-122-2743
  30. https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/tinker-v-tinker-1970
  31. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-024-4677
  32. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f22ca573-b53f-46e6-9252-88696574bcee
  33. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8cb60d03e7f57ecd7e6
  34. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2014_0218_judgment_550b6bc9f0.pdf
  35. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-107-7157?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  36. https://davidfreedman.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/9-Resulting-Trusts-I.pdf
  37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1092032
  38. https://www.digestiblenotes.com/law/trusts/certainty_of_objects.php
  39. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/concept-of-certainty-equity-and-trusts.php
  40. https://ipsaloquitur.com/equity/cases/re-gillingham-bus-disaster-fund/
  41. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/the-cy-pres-doctrine
  42. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/students-guide-to-equity-and-trusts/resulting-trusts/7D283E1D23E6BEBD202C5FE6AE569012
  43. https://academic.oup.com/book/10848/chapter/159037269
  44. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4253/1/4253_1773.pdf
  45. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1966/3.html
  46. https://cora.ucc.ie/bitstreams/f8f2b834-5e1b-4526-a456-588f7d6eb337/download
  47. https://lival.co/images/Documents/unreported-cases/Air_Jamaica_Ltd_v_Joy_Charlton_1_WLR_1399_2.pdf
  48. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/1/4/0/8/1408268213.pdf
  49. https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/ELH/lectures/l21_uses.out.pdf
  50. https://www.dentons.com/~/media/b75c4170c6164deca7f675b27e1f72cf.ashx
  51. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/trusts-of-land-appointment-of-trustees-act-1996
  52. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/12.html
  53. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/trusts-settlements-and-estates-manual/tsem9630
  54. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070425/stack-5.htm
  55. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2270734
  56. https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/36793/2/36793_PAWLOWSKI_Ownership_of_the_family_home.pdf
  57. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-518-0957?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
  58. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/field/field_document/koh_6th_edition_vol_1.pdf
  59. https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2018/08/brexit-english-law-and-the-english-courts-where-are-we-now.pdf
  60. https://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/article.php/brexit%27s-effect-on-trusts-_dash_-an-exploration
  61. https://academic.oup.com/tandt/article/31/4/146/8087015
  62. https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/78.html
  63. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2021/6.pdf
  64. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2016CanLIIDocs4113
  65. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/11025_05
  66. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1768&context=articles
  67. https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/law/faculty/crounds_11_rounds-final_pdftxt.pdf
  68. https://www.ali.org/publications/restatement-law-third/trusts
  69. https://calawyers.org/real-property-law/what-is-a-resulting-trust-versus-a-constructive-trust/
  70. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=wmblr
  71. https://law.uq.edu.au/files/23479/CLI-25July2013-Bryan-Remedial-Constructive-Trust.pdf
  72. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal/article/reanalysing-institutional-and-remedial-constructive-trusts/F2A844B3BE04AC271887C89C6D972A65
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.