Bankruptcy

[Mmmmm1]

Re: Bankruptcy

Thanx openlaw i just mentioned it just to say i have two very strong defence as far as i can i see.. And if iwe knew the law the time we didnt even need a declaration really....Several high court judges have stated that a percentage contribution to the deposit directly relates to percentage ownership...my mother contributed the whole deposit by way of undervalue

here in one judges statement. Cant find the other oneEyre CB's judgment in Dyer v Dyer,^[43] where he said that

The clearest result of all the cases, without a single exception, is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold or leashold; whether taken in the names of the purchasers and others jointly, or in the names of other without that of the purchaser; whether in one name or several; whether jointly or successive - results to the man who advances the purchase money

[Openlaw15]

Re: Bankruptcy

Thanx openlaw i just mentioned it just to say i have two very strong defence as far as i can i see.. And if iwe knew the law the time we didnt even need a declaration really....Several high court judges have stated that a percentage contribution to the deposit directly relates to percentage ownership...my mother contributed the whole deposit by way of undervalue

here in one judges statement. Cant find the other oneEyre CB's judgment in Dyer v Dyer,^[43] where he said that

The clearest result of all the cases, without a single exception, is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold or leashold; whether taken in the names of the purchasers and others jointly, or in the names of other without that of the purchaser; whether in one name or several; whether jointly or successive - results to the man who advances the purchase money

Resultant trust is used for a gift applying to a beneficiary situation. Instead, the gift fails, so it means the gift goes back to the trust via a resultant trust.

Quote me if you want me to respond otherwise I will not know you have responded to me. Thanks

[Mmmmm1]

Re: Bankruptcy

My only concern....and it is only a small concern now....is the evidence relating to when my dad actually passed away .....and my sister holding the property for my mother, there is no official agreement between my mother and sister...

the evidence i do have is in the form of solicitors letters from 15 years ago and same solicitor dealt with everything from probate to properties and consist of the following

-letter showing property passing to mother with full beneficial ownership via probate

- 6 months of correspondence between our solicitor and dads mortgage company attemting to get the mortgage transferred to moms name

- letters stating the above has failed and they will repossess.

- then my sister getting mortgage , then a transfer (not a sale) to my sister



and of of course amutual understanding between sister and mother as to their intentions with the property but this is all circumstantial... Nothing specific



-

[Openlaw15]

Re: Bankruptcy

My only concern....and it is only a small concern now....is the evidence relating to when my dad actually passed away .....and my sister holding the property for my mother, there is no official agreement between my mother and sister...

the evidence i do have is in the form of solicitors letters from 15 years ago and same solicitor dealt with everything from probate to properties and consist of the following

-letter showing property passing to mother with full beneficial ownership via probate

- 6 months of correspondence between our solicitor and dads mortgage company attemting to get the mortgage transferred to moms name

- letters stating the above has failed and they will repossess.

- then my sister getting mortgage , then a transfer (not a sale) to my sister



and of of course amutual understanding between sister and mother as to their intentions with the property but this is all circumstantial... Nothing specific



-

Explain what you mean by sister holding property? Please do not go off on a tangent as am trying to help you.

[Mmmmm1]

Re: Bankruptcy

Explain what you mean by sister holding property? Please do not go off on a tangent as am trying to help you.

There is no tangent openlaw. I just thought it was clear in above post
i thought i was clear from the start of thread that the fundamentals of this is follows.....father passes away. mother unable to get mortgage so has to ask children to hold the property on trust for her. First daughter. Then son

Right at the start of all this, when father passed, my sister held the property on trust for mother, because mother could not get mortgage ( as per above evidence), there is no other evidence such as a declaration for that time. Just the above sitiation

[Openlaw15]

Re: Bankruptcy

There is no tangent openlaw. I just thought it was clear in above post

Right at the start of all this, when father passed, my sister held the property on trust for mother, because mother could not get mortgage ( as per above evidence), there is no other evidence such as a declaration.. Just the above sitiation

please explain in detail how she held the property on trust...why do you believe it was held on trust, ie trust is a legal protective device.

[Mmmmm1]

Re: Bankruptcy

please explain in detail how she held the property on trust...why do you believe it was held on trust, ie trust is a legal protective device.

for the reasons i have mentiond above...mother could not get mortgage so to keep property she had to ask daughter to get mortgage...mother paid repayments..and of course a common intention between the two of them as to the how the property is held


is this not a constructive or implied trust?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Bankruptcy

for the reasons i have mentiond above...mother could not get mortgage so to keep property she had to ask daughter to get mortgage...mother paid repayments..and of course a common intention between the two of them as to the how the property is held


is this not a constructive or implied trust?

I think you're getting confused. Implied trusts are irrelevant for bankruptcy purposes. It's only express trust that are relevant, ie trust by deed or self declaration. Implied trusts are something different.

[Mmmmm1]

Re: Bankruptcy

I think you're getting confused. Implied trusts are irrelevant for bankruptcy purposes. It's only express trust that are relevant, ie trust by deed or self declaration. Implied trusts are something different.

I think you will find that your wrong.

31.3.140 Beneficial interest, trusts and solely-owned property

Where the non-owner has contributed towards the acquisition of the property without any express (written) statement that the contributions will give rise to a beneficial interest, a constructive trust may arise to protect the non-owner’s position (see paragraph 31.3.138).
In determining the value of the non-owner’s beneficial interest in these circumstances, there is a rebuttable presumption that the shares will be held in proportion to the contributions of each party [note 34] [note 35].

[Openlaw15]

Re: Bankruptcy

I think you will find that your wrong.

31.3.140 Beneficial interest, trusts and solely-owned property

Where the non-owner has contributed towards the acquisition of the property without any express (written) statement that the contributions will give rise to a beneficial interest, a constructive trust may arise to protect the non-owner’s position (see paragraph 31.3.138).
In determining the value of the non-owner’s beneficial interest in these circumstances, there is a rebuttable presumption that the shares will be held in proportion to the contributions of each party [note 34] [note 35].

Update

If your sister did not create a trust then the property was never held on trust until 2008 when you declared a trust. In other words, your mother still had ownership of the property until the property was transferred to someone else.

Am failing to see your point...what has this got to do with an express trust, ie by self declaration? Your property is held on trust, as aforesaid. Implied trust means a certain type of beneficial interest in a home that a person has, in other words they may not have legal ownership but they have some interest. This has nothing to do with an express trust.

I have tried to explain the various trusts and their various application, but you still do not seem to understand but to be fair to you it is a lawyer's area. Returning to my original point, how did your sister hold the property on trust? Did she do anything to create a trust, ie any of the procedure you followed? If she did not I fail to see how she could have held the property on trust, not in the legal sense anyway.