Resulting Trusts
Teaching narrative
Resulting trusts arise where equity treats beneficial ownership as returning or resulting to the person who provided property or value, rather than remaining with the holder of legal title. The category includes presumed resulting trusts and resulting trusts arising because an express trust fails or does not exhaust the beneficial interest.
In purchase-money cases, the starting inference may depend on who supplied the purchase price and in whose name the property was acquired. Evidence of actual intention can displace the presumption. The presumption of advancement historically applied to certain relationships, but modern High Court authority requires close attention to whether and how such presumptions should operate in contemporary circumstances.
Calverley v Green remains fundamental for contribution-based resulting trust analysis. Nelson v Nelson demonstrates both presumptions and the interaction with illegality. Bosanac is especially important for modern treatment of the presumption of advancement and the danger of treating historical presumptions as mechanical rules detached from evidence and context.
Resulting trusts must also be distinguished from constructive trusts. A resulting trust generally reflects the beneficial ownership inferred or left undisposed of; a constructive trust is imposed by operation of law in response to circumstances that attract equitable intervention.
Rule and exam map
- Identify legal title and each party’s contribution to acquisition.
- Apply any relevant presumption only as an evidentiary starting point and test it against evidence of actual intention.
- Separate presumed resulting trusts from automatic resulting trusts.
- Do not confuse resulting trusts with remedial constructive trusts.
Leading authorities
Leading Australian authority on purchase-money resulting trusts, contributions and the presumption of advancement.
Important for resulting trusts, presumptions and the interaction between equitable relief and illegality.
Modern High Court treatment of presumptions in beneficial ownership disputes between spouses.
A constructive trust case useful for contrasting resulting-trust reasoning with unconscionability-based constructive trust relief.
Problem-solving method
Issue. Identify the equitable relationship, property or transaction and break it into sub-issues.
Law. State the exact doctrine, any applicable statute, and the authority that explains the rule.
Application. Apply each element to the facts, address the strongest counterargument, then identify the consequence or remedy.
Conclusion. Give a reasoned result and identify any fact that could change the outcome.
Tutorial-style problem
One spouse pays the entire purchase price for a house placed in the other spouse’s sole name. Years later, the relationship ends and the paying spouse claims the entire beneficial interest.
Model answer
Start with legal title and the source of purchase money. Consider whether a purchase-money resulting trust inference arises and whether a presumption of advancement is said to apply. Then assess the evidence of actual intention, using Calverley and the modern caution expressed in Bosanac. Keep any separate constructive trust or family-law argument analytically distinct.