However, on the facts, none of that exists and the legal title, on Bella’s death, is transferred to Dominic who is the sole legal owner of 41 Evergreen Terrace. As a result, the only interest Nigel can establish in the land in order to bar Dominic from selling the property and to continue occupying it is necessarily equitable.
Dominic is currently the owner at law as well as in equity, owing to the lack of any direct conveyance to another or the declaration of a trust. Nigel, in order to claim an equitable ownership of Evergreen will have to rely on a number of recent authorities that allow a third party to claim an interest in the property of another (Pettitt v Pettitt (1970), Lloyds Bank v Rosset (1989), Stack v Dowden (2007)), and argue a constructive trust in his favor.
However, since Nigel contributed to the purchase price, he can argue a resulting trust in his favor as well, according to the principals set in Curley v Parkes. It is apparent from that case that any contribution at the time of acquisition of the property will result in the creation of a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the contributor, entitling him to an equitable ownership in the property (Dyer v Dyer (1788), Laskar v Laskar (2008). However, this law is only operable if the money provided by Nigel was not meant as a gift or loan, which may as well be the case here since it was a father daughter deal. However, the facts are silent on the matter. Moreover, the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden suggested that the resulting trust mechanism to establish an equitable interest in property should be sidelined in favor of constructive trusts, since they can relate to a lot of other factors as well instead of just being concerned with the purchase money, especially in relation to family affairs. Hence, those will be considered below.
Nigel has been made a promise to after he moves in by Dominic. The words used are