StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Constructive Trust Concept - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
From the paper "Constructive Trust Concept" it is clear that trusts are understood to be made for the benefit of beneficiaries, except for the charitable trusts and the purpose trusts. But more often than not establishing what is a trust or not requires a more in-depth analysis of the facts…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER91.3% of users find it useful
Constructive Trust Concept
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Constructive Trust Concept"

Johana Nadler Constructive Trust 3 Mar. 2006 Constructive Trust Whenever the word trust is mentioned, or written, one instantly concludes the implication of loyalty, honorability, and integrity. Equity does not stand far off either with its implied meaning of equality, fairness and justness, along with its representation of property value. And when these two words join in a sentence where a level of consciousness is reached to give a righteous decision, then we tend to believe that the judgment is an accurate one. So, what is the definition of trust in a legal context? There is a myriad of definitions because each trust case carries its specific characteristics making it a unique entity of its own. The simple definition found in a freshman’s law book is a person, whom we shall call the donor, who has complete confidence in another person, (a friend, a relative, or a lawyer), who shall be called the trustee, and gives this person the right to administer his affairs (be it a house, bonds, jewels, an estate, and so on). This is what one usually understands by the word trust. Judge Cardozo gave the following definition: “when a property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.”1 This is far from being that categorical, especially when a slew of other factors make it quite confusing, especially when there are differences between the US and the English interpretation of the constructive trust law. “Lord Wright MR2 deplored the absence of an English work on restitution and noted that the American principles [of constructive trust] stated appear to be consistent with the large and unanalyzed mass of English cases.… [furthermore,] in the Restatement (1937) Lord Wright treats the constructive trust as a remedy,” (Lacy p.1) and assesses the one difference between both countries as to the interpretation and that is one of analysis. If the British judges group the equitable jurisdiction as a restitutionary one, then the remedies must therefore be given by the common law courts. On the other hand, if the English judges take Cardozo’s statement as written then the British judicial system recognizes this US law a universal one regardless of its context. (Lacy p.1) The following cases, Barnes v Addys [1874] LR 9 Ch App 244, Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378, Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltds [1968] 1 WLR 15555 at 1582, and R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, will be used to illustrate the ambiguity of the constructive trust. Barnes v Addys3 , the leading case used in English courts when dealing with constructive trusts, explains how a defendant can become liable in equity for “participation in a breach of trust by another.” (Lacy p. 2) The question was whether the defendant, who was also the trustee and solicitor at that time, could be held liable on a second degree and should be “declared as a constructive trustee, [and therefore,] liable to compensate the beneficiaries. The judges of the Court of Appeal all agreed that the solicitor could not be held liable unless it was proved that he had acted dishonestly and without knowledge of the relevant breach of trust.” (Lacy p. 2) In this case we are faced with three limitations: one, can a stranger to the trust be held liable as an accessory? Second, the ruling was reached based upon the assumption that no evidence of any knowledge of breach of trust or fraudulent breach of trust on the part of the defendant was found. Third and last, how does one interpret “dishonest and fraudulent” in these constructive trust cases? Ungoed Thomas J, in Selango United Rubber Estates v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 1 WLR 1555-1582, states that “the second category of constructive trusteeship is nothing more than a formula for equitable relief, [and] the court of equity says that the defendant shall be liable in equity, as though he were a trustee.” (Lacy p. 3) And he concludes by stating that “trusteeship and constructive trusteeship are equitable conceptions.” (Lacy p 3) However, the Court of Appeal rejected it (see Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltds4), leading to the following quandary: what are the criteria of a trustee if dishonesty is not one of them? The decision upheld by the Privy Council in Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 was that “the defendant against whom accessory liability is alleged must be proven to have acted dishonestly, by objective standards of honesty” (Lacy p. 4) To make matters even more complicated, let us take the case of Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others Lloyd’s Rep Bank 438, which discusses liability involving a third party’s accountability. The matter at hand must evaluate whether a £1 million loan’s terms constitutes the creation of a constructive trust or not. The court decided that it did. However, the other issue was “whether the solicitor …acted …to satisfy the requirements of one or both forms of third party liability traditionally labeled ‘knowing receipt’ and ‘knowing assistance.’ [which is now called ‘dishonest assistance’ as per “the Privy Council decision in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378.” (Speirs p. 1)] It is the second issue that is most difficult, and leads to the deliberation of whether “deliberately shutting [one’s] eyes … to the problems … was dishonesty within the valuable analysis by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan ”[1995] 2 AC 378. Mr. Paul Leach, a solicitor acting as Yardley’s agent, provided the £1 million loan from Twinsectra, with specific agreement that it would only be used to acquire property at a later date. However, and here is where it becomes even more confusing, he did not deal directly with the company. Sims and Roper of Dorset (“Sims”) were Yardley’s representatives and when they acquired the loan gave it to Mr Leach upon Yardley’s request. So, Mr Leach, so far the third party, went along and distributed the money as per Yardley’s instructions using only £357.720,11 for the acquisition of property. When Sims took possession of Twinsectra’s loan and forwarded it to Leach to hold on Yardley’s account, “this was clearly a breach of the stipulation that the money was to be retained by Sims’s firm until applied in the acquisition of property.” (Speirs p. 3) The first and foremost claim to be resolved is the existence of a trust. In Barclays Bank v Quitscllose Investments Ltd. [1970] AC 567, we are facing two trusts, the “express trust, and a resulting trust which [attaches] to any portion of the loan not so used.” (Speirs p. 4) A loan does not exclude the creation of a trust. The fiduciary duty in this case demanded that the solicitor apply the money as per the initial terms, therefore, Sims did breach the contract by using the money as explained in the legal case. One distinction must be made between this case and Tan (from Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan); “[i]n Tan it had been clear that the funds were trust property, [in this case it is] far from clear.” (Speirs p. 5) With regard to the question of honesty, based on the findings of Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan, knowledge of facts does not lead to dishonesty. A dishonest state of mind , of consciousness, is what makes a person dishonest. Hence, Lord Hoffmann agreed with Lord Hutton “that the judge correctly applied this test and that the Court of Appeal was not entitled, on the basis of the written transcript, to make a finding of dishonesty which the judge who saw and heard Mr. Leach did not.” (Judgments 2002 par.20)5 Trusts, in general, are understood to be made for the benefit of beneficiaries, except for the charitable trusts and the purpose trusts. But more often than not establishing what is a trust or not requires more in-depth analysis of the facts. In Twinsectra, Sims appears to be holding the £1 million in trust for Twinsectra until the actual property acquisition occurs. How do we study the liability of third parties associated with breach of trust? “Lord Nicholls in Tan [clearly distinguishes] between knowledge and dishonesty. Knowledge was an ‘inapt criterion’ […] [whereas] dishonesty was meaningful.” (Speirs p. 7 & Tan p. 107) In Leach’s case there are three important points on access liability. First, did Leach know there was a trust to be breached? Second, was Leach dishonest? How do we classify the application of the funds themselves? Though Leach wasn’t aware of the existence of a trust, he did know all the facts relating to the creation of such trust and its breach. “Tan, makes clear that the concept of honesty imposes an objective standard leavened by a subjective element based upon the characteristics and knowledge of the particular defendant” (Speirs p. 7) Finally, with regard to the funds applied in the acquisition of property, “Potter LJ held that no equitable remedy arose against Leah. … there was [only] a breach of the letter rather than its spirit. … Equity holds trustees to a high standard and does not usually excuse because the breach was only technical.”6 The funds transfer from Sims to Leach was indeed a breach of trust, but Leach was not liable because he did not act dishonestly with regard to these funds. He was not “consciously dishonest.” “The test is whether an honest solicitor would receive funds from another solicitor, knowing that solicitor was … in breach of an undertaking, but also knowing that the funds were to be applied according to the lender’s stipulation.” (Speirs p. 8) However, the Court of Appeal did find him liable for assisting Sims’ breach of trust. Here again, we must discuss the term “dishonesty.” Is it subjective or objective? As per Lord Hutton, “there are three possible standards:… the purely subjective standard whereby a person is only regarded as dishonest if he transgresses his own standard of honesty.[…] This has been named the “Robin Hood test” but was rejected by the courts.” (Judgments par.26) So, if it is purely objective standard, then the person acts dishonestly “if his conduct is dishonest by the ordinary standards […] even if he does not realize this. [Finally,] the standard which combines an objective test and a subjective test [must be reached by comparison to] the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and that he, himself, realized that by those standards his conduct was dihonest. [This is called] the combined test.” (Judgments par.27) As we can see, there is no blue print to effectively plead a constructive trust without all the convoluted exceptions that one encounters. When Judge Cardozo stated in his ruling of Beattie v Guggenheim Exploration Co [1919] that “ a constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds its expression,” one cannot disagree but one must realise that there are endless ramifications to take into account before pleading the case or ruling it. Work Cited Judgments: Twinsectra Limited v Yardley and Others, 21 Mar 2002. Session 2001-02 1 Mar. 2006. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020321/yardle-1.htm Lacy de, Richard QC, Constructive trusts : Divided by Common Language ? 1 mar 2006. Google.com search for “Richard de Lacy: Constructive trusts”. www.3sb.law.co.uk/admin/seminars/ seminarpaper.2005-07-28.8224891521/DownloadPDF Speirs, Alistair, Caught in the Tangled Web. 2000 Web Journal of Current Issues with Blackstone Press Ltd. 1 Mar 2006. http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2002/issue3/speirs3.html Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of Essay”, n.d.)
A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of Essay. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1536069-a-constructive-trust-is-the-formula-through-which-the-conscience-of-equity-finds-its-expression-per-cardozo-j-beatty-v-guggenheim-exploration-co-1919-225
(A Constructive Trust Is the Formula through Which the Conscience of Essay)
A Constructive Trust Is the Formula through Which the Conscience of Essay. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1536069-a-constructive-trust-is-the-formula-through-which-the-conscience-of-equity-finds-its-expression-per-cardozo-j-beatty-v-guggenheim-exploration-co-1919-225.
“A Constructive Trust Is the Formula through Which the Conscience of Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1536069-a-constructive-trust-is-the-formula-through-which-the-conscience-of-equity-finds-its-expression-per-cardozo-j-beatty-v-guggenheim-exploration-co-1919-225.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Constructive Trust Concept

Are the constructive trust rules affecting co-owned housing based on the common intention of the parties

While there are several principles and methods for the imposition of the constructive trust the common intentions of the parties is specifically applicable to co-owned housing disputes.... Are the constructive trust rules affecting co-owned housing based on the common intention of the parties?... Introduction While there are several principles and methods for the imposition of the constructive trust the common intentions of the parties is specifically applicable to co-owned housing disputes....
11 Pages (2750 words) Essay

Unauthorised Profits Made by Fiduciary

he concept of trusts arises from imparting rights to third parties on the lands of England landowners to be immune from creditors while having the benefits of ownership.... This helped in taking shape of concept of trust in the time of nonexistence of feudal concerns and when there is a chance of having wealth in many other forms other than land.... he concept of trust is widely used in charity purposes.... ccording to public benefit test of the charities act 2006The concept of trust involves public benefit also....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Purpose Trusts and Quistclose Trusts

The paper "Purpose Trusts and Quistclose Trusts" highlights that arrangements of the character for the payment of a person's creditors by a third person, give rise to a relationship of a fiduciary character or trust, in favour, as a primary trust, of the creditors.... in Re Cleaver, this difference determines whether or not a valid trust is created or not.... If the words used impose an honourable duty there is no valid trust capable of enforcement....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

Constructive Trust & Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown

This paper "constructive trust & Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown" discusses the statement in the context of constructive trust applicability inequitable tracing and fiduciary duties and the financial consequences of relationship breakdown.... It is submitted at the outset that the wide applicability of constructive trust renders it necessary to undertake a contextual approach focusing on particular areas.... Conversely, the Court of Appeal in Agip Africa v Jackson 7 asserted that equity will however allow tracing through mixed bank accounts through the imposition of fiduciary duty and constructive trust, which lends itself to support the assertion that constructive trusts act as the conscience of equity....
9 Pages (2250 words) Case Study

Controversies Surrounding Constructive Trusts

The constructive trust can be established if it is found that any person has obtained the property, after committing the murder of the genuine property owner.... As a particular constructive trust would relate only to the specific property, the legal professionals also call it as a 'proprietary' remedial method of solving the particular disputes.... However, there is no explicit intention on the part of the settlor to establish a constructive trust....
8 Pages (2000 words) Case Study

The Law Relating to Constructive Trust

The author examines the law relating to constructive trust which necessarily requires an examination of fairness and justice between the parties involved.... This is the guiding principle behind the imposition of a constructive trust.... 4An older case, Gissing v Gissing offers a comprehensive understanding of the nature of a constructive trust and the manner in which it will arise at law.... When a party makes some contribution toward the intrinsic value of property in circumstances where it can be implied that by doing so he would acquire some equitable interest in the property trust will be implied....
8 Pages (2000 words) Case Study

Circumstances in Which a Constructive Trust May Be Imposed upon a Trustee

"Circumstances in Which a constructive trust May Be Imposed upon a Trustee" paper focuses on a constructive trust that unlike an express trust is not an agreement between a settlor and a trustee.... The most common circumstance in which a constructive trust may arise is when a party makes some contribution toward the intrinsic value of the property with the understanding that he will acquire some interest in that property.... In these types of scenarios, a constructive trust may be imposed upon a trustee....
11 Pages (2750 words) Coursework

The Principle Distinction Between the Two Types of Trusts According to a General Principle of Law

Whilst clearly unfair, the common law does not provide any protection and in such cases, equity has sought to address the balance through resulting trust or constructive trust.... However, the resulting trust will not cover a situation where one party has foregone a career and be a full-time homemaker and in this case, the constructive trust is relied upon.... The leading case of Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset highlighted the essential requirements for the imposition of a constructive trust asserting its foundation in the common intention of the parties to share the properties....
13 Pages (3250 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us