Goodman v Gallant [1986]
Share
Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam 106 addressed the principle that the doctrine of constructive trust to contradict an expressly declared trust. The dispute arose from the joint tenancy of a property, and the conveyance explicitly declared the parties' interests. The central question was whether the doctrine of constructive trusts could be invoked to challenge the expressly declared trust.
The claimant and her husband were joint beneficial tenants in their home. Subsequently, the claimant and defendant jointly purchased the claimant's husband's interest, and the conveyance explicitly stated that they held the property "upon trust to sell ... until sale upon trust for themselves as joint tenants". The claimant later issued a notice to sever her share and sought a declaration that she held a ¾ interest in the house. The key argument revolved around the nature of joint tenancy and the intentions of the parties upon severance.
The Court of Appeal, led by Slade LJ, concluded that the parties were joint tenants, and the sale proceeds were to be held in equal shares. Slade LJ emphasised the effect of an express declaration of trust, stating that when there is a clear declaration of beneficial interests, the application of resulting or constructive trusts is precluded unless and until the declaration is set aside or rectified.
Slade LJ further elucidated the nature of joint tenancy, highlighting that upon severance, each party takes an equal aliquot share according to the number of joint tenants. While acknowledging the possibility for a trust to stipulate different outcomes upon severance, in this case, the conveyance's language indicated a beneficial joint tenancy, with all the associated incidents, including equal shares upon severance.
The principle established in this case underscores the importance of respecting express declarations of trust and limits the application of constructive trusts when such declarations exist. The case's implications are likely to extend to modern doctrines such as the common intention constructive trust, particularly when cohabiting parties have made an explicit declaration of trust outlining their respective shares in the property. This case serves as a precedent emphasising the significance of clear and unambiguous expressions of parties' intentions in property transactions.
The claimant and her husband were joint beneficial tenants in their home. Subsequently, the claimant and defendant jointly purchased the claimant's husband's interest, and the conveyance explicitly stated that they held the property "upon trust to sell ... until sale upon trust for themselves as joint tenants". The claimant later issued a notice to sever her share and sought a declaration that she held a ¾ interest in the house. The key argument revolved around the nature of joint tenancy and the intentions of the parties upon severance.
The Court of Appeal, led by Slade LJ, concluded that the parties were joint tenants, and the sale proceeds were to be held in equal shares. Slade LJ emphasised the effect of an express declaration of trust, stating that when there is a clear declaration of beneficial interests, the application of resulting or constructive trusts is precluded unless and until the declaration is set aside or rectified.
Slade LJ further elucidated the nature of joint tenancy, highlighting that upon severance, each party takes an equal aliquot share according to the number of joint tenants. While acknowledging the possibility for a trust to stipulate different outcomes upon severance, in this case, the conveyance's language indicated a beneficial joint tenancy, with all the associated incidents, including equal shares upon severance.
The principle established in this case underscores the importance of respecting express declarations of trust and limits the application of constructive trusts when such declarations exist. The case's implications are likely to extend to modern doctrines such as the common intention constructive trust, particularly when cohabiting parties have made an explicit declaration of trust outlining their respective shares in the property. This case serves as a precedent emphasising the significance of clear and unambiguous expressions of parties' intentions in property transactions.
