Grant v Edwards [1986]
Share
Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 is a notable English Court of Appeal case that builds upon the principles established in Eves v Eves [1975]. This legal proceeding focuses on common intention constructive trusts, specifically addressing situations where an express intention to put the house into joint names is evident but remains unfulfilled.
The case revolves around the purchase of a house for the claimant and defendant to live in a manner akin to a married couple. Interestingly, the plaintiff was legally married to someone else, and the property was registered in the name of the defendant and the defendant's brother. The defendant had explained to the plaintiff that putting her name on the title deeds would be detrimental to her ongoing divorce proceedings, using a legal justification similar to the one in Eves v Eves. While the claimant contributed significantly to housekeeping and child-rearing, the circumstances were somewhat less involved than in Eves v Eves.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the claimant was entitled to a 50% share in the proceeds of the property's sale. This decision rested on the common intention shared between the parties, emphasised by the statement that Mrs Grant's name would appear on the title deeds. The court explicitly followed the precedent set by Eves v Eves, a case of equal legal significance. Notably, while Eves v Eves resulted in a 25% share, Grant v Edwards determined that a 50% share was fair in this particular context. The court considered factors such as Mrs Grant's substantial contributions, both financial and in terms of housekeeping, and the expressed common intention regarding joint ownership.
Grant v Edwards extends the application of common intention constructive trusts, reinforcing the importance of parties' expressed intentions, even when not fulfilled. The case highlights the evolving nature of constructive trusts in addressing contributions and shared intentions in the context of joint property ownership.
The case revolves around the purchase of a house for the claimant and defendant to live in a manner akin to a married couple. Interestingly, the plaintiff was legally married to someone else, and the property was registered in the name of the defendant and the defendant's brother. The defendant had explained to the plaintiff that putting her name on the title deeds would be detrimental to her ongoing divorce proceedings, using a legal justification similar to the one in Eves v Eves. While the claimant contributed significantly to housekeeping and child-rearing, the circumstances were somewhat less involved than in Eves v Eves.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the claimant was entitled to a 50% share in the proceeds of the property's sale. This decision rested on the common intention shared between the parties, emphasised by the statement that Mrs Grant's name would appear on the title deeds. The court explicitly followed the precedent set by Eves v Eves, a case of equal legal significance. Notably, while Eves v Eves resulted in a 25% share, Grant v Edwards determined that a 50% share was fair in this particular context. The court considered factors such as Mrs Grant's substantial contributions, both financial and in terms of housekeeping, and the expressed common intention regarding joint ownership.
Grant v Edwards extends the application of common intention constructive trusts, reinforcing the importance of parties' expressed intentions, even when not fulfilled. The case highlights the evolving nature of constructive trusts in addressing contributions and shared intentions in the context of joint property ownership.
