Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to hold the property for the benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or revert to the transferor (as an implied settlor).
A resulting trust is not imposed by law against the intentions of the trustee (as in a constructive trust) but gives effect to his presumed intention". Alastair Hudson , Professor of Equity and Law at Queen Mary, University of London , argues that Browne-Wilkinson's theory is flawed, primarily because if the trust can not be enforced against ...
Tinsley v Milligan [1993] UKHL 3 is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality. The decision was criticised as "creating capricious results". [1] It has now been overruled by Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42.
In my view that is the position here. As it was a loan, I think it is quite inconsistent with that to say that it could create a resulting trust at the same time. I accept as a correct statement of law the short passage in Underhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees, 12th ed. (1970), p. 210, in these words: [2]
The presumption of a resulting trust was rebutted. If there is no evidence either way of intention to benefit someone with a property transfer, the presumption of a resulting trust is transferred is not absolute. The Law of Property Act 1925 section 60(3) states that a resulting trust does not arise simply with absence of an express intention ...
In 1967, the Florida Legislature merged the duties and responsibilities of several state criminal justice organizations to create the Bureau of Law Enforcement. Bringing together the resources of the Florida Sheriffs Bureau, the State Narcotics Bureau, and the law enforcement activities of the Anti-Bookie Squad of the Florida Attorney General's Office, the original Bureau of Law Enforcement ...
“Today, we celebrate the graduation of our 176th Law Enforcement Academy class and the launch of 17 promising careers dedicated to public service,” said Dr. Timothy E. Moore, Indian River ...
The Court of Appeal held that the father could demand return of the shares, because his illegal scheme had not in fact been carried into effect. Millett LJ said it was true that an illegal purpose cannot rebut the presumption of advancement, but because the illegal purpose had not been carried out, the father was not precluded of pleading the purpose to claim a resulting trust.