EQUITY - TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - IMPLIED TRUSTS - RESULTING TRUSTS - REBUTTAL OF IMPLICATION - PRESUMPTION OF ADVANCEMENT
The plaintiff is the father of the first defendant and the father-in-law of the second defendant. The defendants are the registered proprietors of a house property at Glandore, disposed as two detached dwellings of unequal size and other improvements. The Glandore property was purchased in 1984. At that time the defendants sold their two existing properties and borrowed a further $50,000 to be in a position to contribute $90,000 to the overall purchase price, the conveyancing costs and the outgoings on the property. The plaintiff and his (late) wife sold their house at Prospect and provided the sum of $70,000 that was used in the purchase of the Glandore property. The borrowing of $50,000 made by the defendants was secured by a mortgage given by them over the Glandore property. The plaintiff and his wife knew of the existence and the registration of the mortgage from 1984.
The plaintiff and his wife moved into the Glandore property in 1984 and lived there until the death of the plaintiff’s wife in 1997. After that time, the plaintiff lived there alone. The plaintiff occupied the smaller of the two dwellings on the property. The defendants commenced paying for all costs and expenses associated with the whole land, including all utilities, rates and taxes for a period from 1984. From some time after 1984, the plaintiff and his wife made contributions to council rates and one quarter of the water bill. The defendants paid for all other utilities. After 1997, the defendant paid almost all of the cost of rates and utilities supplied to the whole of the Glandore property.
From about 1997 the plaintiff was aware that he was not registered as a proprietor of the Glandore property. In 2008, the plaintiff caused a solicitor’s letter to be sent to the defendants claiming an entitlement to be registered as a proprietor of a moiety interest in the Glandore property. The plaintiff continued to live in the Glandore property until 2012 when he left to live elsewhere.
The defendants contend that the arrangements made in 1984 were that the plaintiff and his wife asked them to purchase the Glandore property so that the plaintiff and his wife could live with them for support, care and familial company. The defendants agreed to sell their house, a spare land block owned by them and incur a mortgage obligation to purchase the Glandore property. The defendants contend that they agreed to allow the plaintiff and his wife to live at the property rent free and cost free for their lives, in consideration of the plaintiff and his wife gifting the amount of $70,000 to enable the purchase of the Glandore property. The sum of $70,000 provided by the plaintiff and his wife was used…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Craig v Craig
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Craig v Craig [2015] SADC 109
Case
[2015] SADC 109
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved the father, the plaintiff, who sought to establish a beneficial interest in a property purchased by his son, the first defendant, and daughter-in-law, the second defendant, using contributions from both parties. The plaintiff argued that an implied trust should be imposed on the Glandore property, given his significant financial contribution towards the purchase. The first defendant and the second defendant contested the plaintiff's claim, asserting that there was no intention to create a trust and that the property should be held solely in their names as joint proprietors.
The legal issues before the court centred around whether the contributions made by the plaintiff to the purchase price of the Glandore property constituted a sufficient basis for imposing a resulting trust, and if so, whether the presumption of advancement could be rebutted. The court had to determine if the evidence supported an intention to create a trust and whether the contributions made by the plaintiff were significant enough to establish a beneficial interest in the property.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the contributions made by both the plaintiff and the defendants towards the purchase of the Glandore property. The court found that the plaintiff's contribution of $70,000 was substantial compared to the defendants' total contribution of $90,000, including the $50,000 borrowed and secured by a mortgage over the property. The court concluded that the evidence supported the imposition of a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff, as the contributions made by him were significant enough to establish a beneficial interest in the Glandore property. The court also found that the presumption of advancement did not apply in this case, as there was no evidence of an intention to make a gift to the defendants.
The court ordered that a resulting trust be imposed on the Glandore property, with the plaintiff holding a beneficial interest of 43.48 per cent. The court further ordered that the Glandore property be divided into two lots, with the plaintiff receiving Lot 1, which includes the larger of the two detached dwellings, and the defendants retaining Lot 2.