Equity and trusts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Equity and trusts - Essay Examplepective of property relations such that even if matrimonial couples lived together in a property owned by one of them prior to the marriage and employ the same as family home after the marriage the law does not deem the newcomer as a part owner of such property. Albeit the courts enjoy wide discretion under the Matrimonial Causes fiddle of 1973 to distribute the properties in the midst of divorced husband and wife, a declaration dividing the matrimonial home equally between the ex-spouses cannot be made ipso facto because courts usually take into account legalities and legal requirements in adjudicating such property.Thus, in Pettitt v Pettitt 1970 AC 777 HL, the Court declared that the husband has no equitable engage in the couples family home notwithstanding the fact that he contributed labour and money in the improvement of the property. The Court held that the wife is the legal and equitable owner of the property because she used her own mo ney in its purchase. This decision was held despite the fact that the husband relied on the provision of s 17 of the Married Womens Property coif 1882, which allowed the Court discretion to distribute properties between contending husbands and wives.In another interesting case, Lloyds Bank v Rosset 1991 1 AC 107, 1991 All ER 1111, a married couple purchased a farmhouse out of family funds. The sellers, however, insisted that the purchase should be made in the name of the husband alone but the wife had a significant map in supervising the extensive repairs over the property. The family funds, however, were not enough to pay for the entire purchase damage of the property and the husband, without the knowledge of the wife, sought loan from a bank and secured the same with a legal fault over the property. When the payments for the loans defaulted, the bank moved to foreclose the property over the objection of the wife who claimed beneficial interest over it. The Court disagreed hold ing that the wife had no beneficial interest over it