| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
A resulting trust is one that arises by action of law, in circumstances in which the benefit of the trust `results' back to the settlor.
Typically a resulting trust will arise because an attempt to create an express trust fails, and the trust `rebounds' to the settlor. For example, if the settlor fails to specify the trust property properly (see CertaintyOfSubjectMatter), or the beneficiaries cannot be identified (see CertaintyOfObjects), or the trust is unworkable, then the trustee will hold the legal title on resulting trust for the settlor.
However, there is no hard-and-fast definition of a resulting trust and, in fact, the very term `resulting trust' is one that has been applied by academic authorities on the basis of decided cases. It was rarely used by the courts, at least until quite recently. In ReVandervellNo21974, Megarry J identified two types of situation in which the beneficial interest would result to the settlor:
There are problems with this simple categorisation. First, a number of constructs which are recognized as resulting trusts (or, at least, cannot be classified better as anything else) don't fit neatly into either category. For example, the QuistcloseTrust -- a resulting trust which comes into action if money advanced to pay a debt does not get used for that purpose -- does not arise `automatically', but on a particular contingency. Second, it can be quite difficult to distinguish between a presumed intention resulting trust, and a ConstructiveTrust of the type recognized in LloydsBankVRosset1991. Where a trust is imposed on a person who receives legal title, in order to prevent the recipient's unjust enrichment, this could be interpreted either as a resulting trust or a constructive trust. Indeed, in GissingVGissing1970, a case that concerned whether a wife was entitled to a beneficial interest in a house to which legal title was held by her husband, Lord Diplock stated that it was unnecessary to determine whether the court was considering a result, implied, or constructive trust.
The difficulty of deciding whether a resulting trust should be found on the facts of a particular case results in part from the fact that there is no general agreement on the theoretical or doctrinal basis for resulting trusts. While all resulting trusts have in common that the beneficial interest results to the settlor, this cannot be the determinative factor. See the article TheoreticalBasisForResultingTrusts for a discussion of this point.
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |