Dyer v Dyer
Where a person pays for property that is put in the name of another, there is a presumption that the other holds it on resulting trust for the person who paid.
Facts
A father bought a copyhold property, paying the whole price himself, and had it granted to himself, his wife and his younger son for their lives, successively. After the father's death, his eldest son claimed that the younger son held the property on resulting trust for the father's estate, because the father had paid for it.
Legal principle
Eyre CB said that the clear result of all the cases is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold or leasehold, whether taken in the names of the purchasers and others jointly, or in the names of others without that of the purchaser, results to the man who advances the purchase money. However, on the facts, the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by the presumption of advancement, because the younger son was the purchaser's child, so the son took beneficially.
Related cases on resulting trusts
- Re Abbott Fund Trusts [1900] 2 Ch 326
- Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399
- Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567
- Bennet v Bennet (1879) 10 Ch D 474
- Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) LR 10 Ch App 343
- Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300
- Hussey v Palmer [1972] 1 WLR 1286
- Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347, [2008] 1 WLR 2695
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
