part of the problem with understanding resulting trusts is that people are often not aware of where the term comes from or how it is used well within the context of English law the resulting in resulting trusts comes from the Latin result RA which means literally to jump back and so we're dealing with the idea in this lecture of property that is maybe transferred to another person but then jumps back to the original person who actually gave the property in the first place and I think once we have that basic understanding out of the way we can begin to look at different examples and also categorizations of resulting trusts where this jumping back idea comes into full force so with that in mind let's get started we can start off with a couple of examples of resulting trusts from Lord Brown Wilkinson in the case of West Doty Landers bank and Islington London Borough Council for in 1996 in the first instance we have a settler who is trying to create a trust but the problem is that the there are unknown beneficiaries of the equitable interest and the problem with this is that English law hates the idea of property existing without an owner and so how does the law of resulting trusts help to solve this well the property essentially just results back to the settler and that is the way that that situation is solved in the second example it's a game very simple we have a piece of property or land and various people who are contributing towards the purchase price and if you contribute 15% of the purchase price then you are entitled to 15% of the equitable interest under a resulting trust very simple and originally the idea behind this was it was based on the intention of the trustees but we saw in the first example that really we're looking at the intention of the settler as the important thing here and so a better solution was come up with by vice-chancellor McGary in the case of Reeve and availed number two from 1974 and he distinguish between automatic resulting trusts and presumed resulting trusts and we'll explore each of those in turn now so automatic resulting trusts and it's based on the idea that all owners of equitable interests have to be identifiable as we talked about in the first example and where that fails then we have a resulting trust that goes back to the settler or jumps back if you like but why might these trusts fail well as well as the idea of certainty of objects that we've talked about in previous lectures we also have things like condition precedent which is a condition that has to be met before the trust comes into being so for example the beneficiaries have to get married and then they don't do so and therefore the trust fails or a condition subsequent which means that the trust is in existence but will fail if a certain condition is then subsequently met so the example again beneficiaries have to remain married but if they got a divorce then Trust might fail for example another question around automatic resulting trust is what happens to surplus property that comes out of the result out of the original trust and in a general sense the extra property that is created or exists would simply result back to the original settler again a bit like the first example and the authority for that is REIT rests of the abbot fund 1900 although there are a few exceptions firstly for charitable trust the property is applied under the sea pray doctrine which basically means that it's applied to the charitable purpose as closely as possible secondly is possible for the beneficiaries to essentially wind up the trust themselves under the principle of Saunders and voltio that we've also talked about in previous lectures and finally for unincorporated associations the property is very simply distributed amongst the members anyway and that comes from the case of our ebooks for 1978 before we move from automatic resulting tress on to presumed resulting tress we also have to look at a sort of very specific example that's nevertheless important at which are called Quist close trusts and these are basically another variation on resulting trusts that comes from this specific case in 1970 and so we start off with a razor blade company who has to pay dividends to its shareholders but the razor blade company is not doing very well financially and so they have to get a loan from Quist close Investments Limited now the problem is that the problems get worse for the razor blade company and so what happens is the bank comes in and they try to grab that money that is intended for the shareholders but the courts in this case said that there was a resulting trust created because the intention of the loan money was to pay the shareholders and so the bank can't just come in and undermine the purpose of that trust and simply because they want to get paid as creditors and so the court dismissed the bank's claim and that resulting Trust was created so for quiz closed trustee anything you need to remember is that where there is loan money with an intention or with a specific intention then a resulting trust will be created that's enough of that now let's move on to presumed resulting trust and these are examples of resulting trusts where instead of the trust failing we instead have a presumption that the property will pass as a gift from one person to another and the law case law bases this on certain specific relationships in particularly we have father and child which comes from Bennett and Bennett although interestingly the lawyers are either sex is sexist in the sense that it doesn't allow a mother and child relationship to have that presumption either and we also have the example of a husband and wife and tinkerer and tinkerer from 1970 and this is possibly a bit more common nowadays and especially with things like a joint bank account between a husband and wife which will be a presumed resulting trust and it's almost based on the idea of a joint tenancy and so you have principles of survivorship so if a husband and wife had a joint bank account and then the husband died well the joint bank account would then go into the property of the wife it would result back to her this is also a quite important principle of voluntary gifts as well in particular personal property in Ravena grade off from 1935 we have the instance of shares and so we had a grandmother who owned some shares and she created her daughter granddaughter to be a joint shareholder and when the grandmother eventually died this principle of sort of survivorship meant that the shares were part of a resulting trust a presumed resulting trust based on it being a voluntary gift and so the granddaughter was entitled to keep the shares and because she was a joint shareholder under this presumed resulting trust in terms of land this is also possibly open to the idea of reprieve resulting trusts as well the case of Hudson and Marx is a pretty good example but generally for property because of the requirement to have things written down and contracts to be signed and things like that generally speaking it's constructive trusts that apply there but just be aware of it finally with presumed resulting trusts we can go back to the second example we talked about right at the start about the contribution to the purchase price in Lloyds Bank and Russert this was expanded to also include contributions to the mortgage and this creates a resulting trust over the property based on the level of contribution the contribution they does have to be directed at the acquisition and so again the law being rather sexist in burns and burns things like child care or contributing to the shopping or the raising of a family doesn't actually count enough to and guarantee you an equitable interest in that property which is probably a little bit harsh but it does help to establish certainty in the law so the reason that these are presumed resulting trusts means that there is a presumption that the court makes but as with any legal case that presumption can be rebutted so he talked a little bit earlier about joint bank accounts between a husband and wife but it's probably not difficult to imagine the type of situation where the husband goes a bit mad and buys a Ferrari or the couple are about to get a divorce and so one of the husband or the wife and decides to empty out the bank account before doing so and so based on that there has to be an ability for the other party to essentially rebut the presumption and say that yes originally this bank account was intended to be shared but the husband has gone completely off the rails and therefore it's not fair that he should basically be allowed to spend all of this hard-earned money that I have also worked for just to spite me and so the courts will look at the factual circumstances around the case as in Yonge and Seeley and there might also be variations based on the agreement between the husband and wife for example if the proper transferred to a family member to avoid tax and then the family member decides not to actually give the property back then it is possible that a resulting trust will be created in favor of the original owner and they the family member would have to return that property and that comes from second and Alisa 4 1989 in a similar type of situation we're also possibly looking at cases of illegality where property is transferred from one person who is in a lot of financial trouble whether that's business related or loan related and in order to avoid losing their property they try and avoid the creditors by passing that on to someone else however this is clearly illegal and therefore the court has to sort of have a difficult think about what they do in this type of situation and originally the courts wouldn't allow resulting trust in any cases of illegality and this godess authority from Gascoigne and Gascoigne in 1918 the Lord did change a little bit in the early 90s case of Tinsley & Milligan where Tinsley owned a house and Milligan contributed towards the purchase price but the reason that she was not listening Milligan was not listed as an owner was because the the couple could get more money if from benefits if it was just listed as Tinsley's house so when the couple split up in Tinsley tried to create and get all of the money for herself Milligan was in a problematic situation because on the one hand she contributed to the purchase price and therefore there should be a resulting trust but on the other hand she's also been a party to this illegality and whereby they were trying to claim more benefits and more more money from the government than they were actually entitled to and so the question was what should the Lord do in this type of situation and the courts decided that there should actually be a resulting trust created and but it didn't really resolve the issue around illegality and essentially they were allowed to benefit from there illegal actions fortunately the law has developed again since then this was very recently in the case of Patel and Mirza from 2016 and Patel gave Mirza about 600,000 pounds to essentially invest illegally in certain investments where Mirza had inside information turned out that the information was wrong and the question then was would could patel get his 600,000 pounds back even though it was illegal to actually invest that money in that way on the basis of insider information in the first place and the courts did this time address the question of illegality and they said well really it's for the criminal courts to deal with the issues of illegality and all that the civil court should be looking at is would the public interest be harmed if the illegal agreement was in force and so Patel actually won that case and got his money back and the contract was enforced there was a resulting trust for the six hundred thousand pounds which was good for him but then it leaves the criminal case open and it's for other parties for other courts to bring a prosecution against those people for the insider trading similarly in tribe and tribe resulting trust was allowed because the illegal purpose had not been carried out again I think probably nowadays on the back of patella mercy you would maybe look more towards the public interest test when you're applying the law in this area and that that's an important thing and another important factor related to illegality is section 423 of the insolvency Act 1986 which gives the court wide-ranging powers in reallocating property so if the court suspect that someone has transferred property in order to avoid creditors then the courts do have that power under Section 423 to make orders in order to ensure that they're not avoiding their creditors and that's a really wide-ranging power it's actually probably a little bit too wide-ranging but and that's topic for another lecture in a very final thing that we're going to talk about I promise here's the idea of mistake and obviously there's no resulting trust if there was an intention to transfer the property in the first place so if there's no mistakin there's an intention to transfer the property then that should be absolutely fine as per Westar landers bank the case that we mentioned right at the start but there is an exception if the person who received the property knows that receiving it was actually a mistake and that the transfer or or the original settler didn't intend to transfer that property at all and then that in those types of situations a result interest will be created and the property will revert back to the original person who owned it and there we have resulting trusts if this topic comes up as a part of a problem question then the first thing that you want to do is to distinguish between whether it's an automatic resulting trust or a presumed resulting trust once you've got that distinction sorted you can then apply the law on that basis if this topic comes up as an essay question then there is a number of different issues and factors that you might want to consider it's the categorization useful is the little quite sexist when it comes to presumed resulting trusts and when it comes to illegality how do you the how does the decision in Patel and Mirza from 2016 equate with the idea that those who come to equity should come with clean hands so a lot to think about there but in the meantime leave a like if you enjoyed this video make sure to subscribe for more videos in the future and if you've got any questions or comments leave those below and I'll try and get back to you thanks very much for watching bye