Ambulation, severance, and the common intention constructive trust

cb
Thumbnail Image
Files
Date
2012-10
Authors
Mee, John
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Sweet & Maxwell
Published Version
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Analyses the Supreme Court ruling in Jones v Kernott on whether the presumption that a separated unmarried couple, who had jointly owned their home, held beneficial interest in the property in equal shares could be displaced by evidence of their changed intention, so it was possible to find that they were now beneficial tenants in common in the proportions of nine to one under a common intention constructive trust. Argues that this reasoning is founded on the "ambulatory" potential of this trust, a notion derived from the House of Lords judgment in Stack v Dowden.
Description
Keywords
Beneficial interests , Constructive trusts , Co-ownership , Family home , Intention , Presumptions , Relationship breakdown , Unmarried couples
Citation
Mee, J. (2012) 'Ambulation, severance, and the common intention constructive trust', Law Quarterly Review, 128(4), pp. 500-503.
Link to publisher’s version
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10468/15623
Collections
Law - Journal Articles
Copyright
© 2012, Sweet & Maxwell, part of Thomson Reuters. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Law Quarterly Review following peer review. The definitive published version [Mee, J. (2012) 'Ambulation, severance, and the common intention constructive trust', Law Quarterly Review, 128(4), pp. 500-503] is available online on Westlaw UK.