Sophie and Marcus have recently split up having lived together for 20 years. They nevermarried. They have a daughter, Amy, who is 17 years old.Marcus purchased the family home 20 years ago in his sole name. When, at the time ofthe purchase, Sophie suggested that the house should be conveyed into their joint names,Marcus said, “Why do you want a stupid piece of paper saying that? Don’t you trustme?” Marcus provided the deposit. The balance of the purchase price was funded by amortgage loan. Marcus has paid all the mortgage installments. Sophie used the saleproceeds of her studio flat to furnish the new house.Shortly before Amy was born, Sophie gave up her job and did not work until 2004 whenshe got part-time work. Her wages were a welcome addition to the family financesbecause Marcus’s business was going through a bad period. Marcus continued to meetthe mortgage payments but since 2004, Sophie has paid all other household bills.Advise Sophie on whether she can claim a half-share in the family home and, if not,whether any other remedies may be available to her.- END -
Question
Sophie and Marcus have recently split up having lived together for 20 years. They nevermarried. They have a daughter, Amy, who is 17 years old.Marcus purchased the family home 20 years ago in his sole name. When, at the time ofthe purchase, Sophie suggested that the house should be conveyed into their joint names,Marcus said, “Why do you want a stupid piece of paper saying that? Don’t you trustme?” Marcus provided the deposit. The balance of the purchase price was funded by amortgage loan. Marcus has paid all the mortgage installments. Sophie used the saleproceeds of her studio flat to furnish the new house.Shortly before Amy was born, Sophie gave up her job and did not work until 2004 whenshe got part-time work. Her wages were a welcome addition to the family financesbecause Marcus’s business was going through a bad period. Marcus continued to meetthe mortgage payments but since 2004, Sophie has paid all other household bills.Advise Sophie on whether she can claim a half-share in the family home and, if not,whether any other remedies may be available to her.- END -
Solution
Sophie's claim to a half-share in the family home is dependent on a number of factors.
Firstly, it's important to note that Marcus is the legal owner of the property as he purchased it in his sole name. However, Sophie may have a claim to a beneficial interest in the property under a trust of land.
There are two types of trusts that could be relevant here: a resulting trust or a constructive trust.
A resulting trust could arise if Sophie directly contributed to the purchase price of the property. However, from the facts given, it appears that Sophie did not contribute to the purchase price but rather used her money to furnish the house. This is unlikely to give rise to a resulting trust.
A constructive trust could arise if Sophie can show that there was a common intention between her and Marcus that she would have an interest in the property, and she acted to her detriment on the basis of this intention. The fact that Marcus said “Why do you want a stupid piece of paper saying that? Don’t you trust me?” when Sophie suggested that the house should be conveyed into their joint names could potentially be evidence of this common intention. Sophie giving up her job and paying all other household bills since 2004 could potentially be seen as acting to her detriment.
However, the court would also consider the whole course of dealing between Sophie and Marcus in relation to the property. This includes the fact that Marcus has paid all the mortgage installments.
If Sophie is unable to establish a beneficial interest in the property, she may be able to make a claim under the Children Act 1989 for financial provision for Amy, who is still a minor. This could potentially include a transfer of the property to Sophie.
Sophie should seek legal advice to explore these options further.
Similar Questions
Kelley was born on 5 October 1984 in Lima. During the current year of assessment, she sold her holiday home for R7 000 000. The selling price includes state agent commission of R700 000 paid to the estate agents. Kelley agreed to repay the purchaser R2 200 000 once the transaction is complete. The transaction was completed before the year of assessment. YOU ARE REQUIRED to determine the proceeds.a.R6 300 000b.R4 800 000c.R2 200 000d.R7 000 000Clear my choice
Kelley was born on 5 October 1984 in Lima. During the current year of assessment, she sold her holiday home for R7 000 000. The selling price includes state agent commission of R700 000 paid to the estate agents. Kelley agreed to repay the purchaser R2 200 000 once the transaction is complete. The transaction was completed before the year of assessment. YOU ARE REQUIRED to determine the proceeds.a.R7 000 000b.R4 800 000c.R6 300 000d.R2 200 000
Lisa is thinking of buying a new house. On Saturday, she inspected a large residential property in Melbourne which met all her criteria. The real estate agent told her that the price of the house was $2.5 million. Lisa replied that she really liked the house, but that she will need some time to organise finance. Then she adds, ‘I will give you $50 if you keep the offer open for two weeks’. The real estate agent agrees, Lisa hands him a $50 note, and he puts the note in his wallet.After three days, the real estate agent contacts Lisa and tells her that he revokes the offer, as the house has been sold to someone else. He also adds that he will give her the $50 back. Lisa seeks your advice.Which of the following is CORRECT?Question 14Answera.Lisa cannot sue for breach: a promise to keep an offer open for a specific period of time does not apply to the sale or lease of real estate property, and the seller is therefore able to return the $50.b.Lisa can sue for breach of contract: the promise to keep the offer open for a specific period of time is an option contract. Therefore, the seller was unable to revoke the offer before the two weeks had expired.c.Lisa cannot sue for breach: the promise to keep the offer open is not binding because Lisa has not provided consideration. The seller is therefore able to revoke the offer, and return the $50.d.Lisa can recover the $50, but she cannot sue for breach of contract.
North Bank has lent Sophie Limited $600 000. Part of the loan contract prevents Sophie from borrowing money in the future from other banks without the permission of North. As a result of this relationship: Group of answer choices Sophie Limited is regarded as a subsidiary of North Bank. direct the relevant activities of Sophie Limited. North Bank is regarded as a parent entity of Sophie Limited. a parent-subsidiary relationship does not exist between these two parties.
You are hosting an open house. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Martin come intothe house. You greet them and show them the house. The Martins tellyou the house is exactly what they are looking for and they are veryinterested in purchasing it. You then give them information showingthe various types of financing available with down payment optionsand projected payments.Mr. Martin tells you they have been working with Mary Hempstead ofXX Realty, a competing real estate company. Before leaving, youthank them for coming and give them your business card.A. The first thing on Monday morning, Mrs. Martin calls andindicates they have tried to reach Mary and cannot. Theyindicate they have a written buyer’s agent agreement withMary’s broker. They are afraid someone else is going to buy thehouse. Which of the following should you do? Select the bestanswer.1. Seek advice from your supervising broker.2. Tell them to come to your office.3. Ask them to bring the buyer’s agency agreement to you foryour interpretation.4. Tell them to be patient and continue trying to reach Mary.5. Tell them to call Mary’s supervising broker or branchmanager.6. Tell them you are really sorry, but there is nothing you cando.
Upgrade your grade with Knowee
Get personalized homework help. Review tough concepts in more detail, or go deeper into your topic by exploring other relevant questions.