Critique on the article
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Aziz Fatima Medical & Dental College, Faisalabad *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5918038847
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by afaq567
Critique on the article "Ownership of the Family Home - What Role the Resulting Trust?"
by M. Pawlowski.
The article discusses the presumption of shared beneficial ownership and its application,
with cases like Stack v. Dowden and Fowler v. Barron serving as crucial precedents. The
following rulings provide light on the complexities of assuming equitable ownership based on
legal title and the possible repercussions of doing so
1
. In his paper, Pawlowski thoroughly
examines this presumption, drawing attention to apparent imbalances and focusing on instances
where one side has donated far more monetarily than the other. Lord Neuberger's trust-based
option is discussed from several different viewpoints. This alternative viewpoint questions the
egalitarian premise and prompts a deeper inquiry into the drivers of property ownership.
Pawlowski's book is an insightful scholarly guide in the current legal context, clarifying the
complexity of equitable rights in family residences and stimulating in-depth discussions on
justice and fairness.
Subject: Title: "Ownership of the Family Home - What Role the Resulting Trust?" Its
author, M. Pawlowski, clever argument centers on the equitable ownership of jointly purchased
family residences. Whether or not fair rights will be recognized when two or more persons
together buy property is the subject of much discussion. Pawlowski argues that the court must
presume equal beneficial ownership when a married or cohabiting couple purchases a home
jointly. Courts have shown in decisions like Stack v. Dowden that without a formal declaration of
trust or unambiguous discussions addressing equitable interests, they will presume joint
beneficial ownership from legal co-ownership.
1 Pawlowski, M. (2022). Ownership of the family home-what role the resulting trust?.
Family Law
,
52
, 803-807.
The author extensively cites supporting cases like Stack v. Dowden and Fowler v. Barron
to demonstrate the validity of their claims. The couple at issue in Fowler v. Barron were married
but did not correctly register their property as a joint. The man was the breadwinner and financial
head of the household. Like the Stack case before, the Court of Appeal concluded joint beneficial
ownership based on legal co-ownership. To support its assertion that such assumptions might
result in uneven results, the essay effectively uses a quote from Fowler
2
. As seen below, if one
party, often the financial donor, does not fully comprehend the ramifications of the acquisition,
they may be unjustly saddled with the "default rule" of equal ownership. Stack and Fowler's
focus on the real-world repercussions of assumptions highlights the necessity for a complex
approach to determine fair privilege.
However, presuming shared beneficial ownership might have serious consequences.
Under this theory, the request will be split down the middle regardless of who paid for what
portion of the land. In light of the article's examples, in which one co-owner paid a smaller
amount of the price, this may seem unfair. After taking possession of the property, the claimant
might increase their equity stake by spending lavishly on repairs. Stack believes that significant
improvements made to a property after purchase may create grounds for contesting the
assumption of equal beneficial ownership and the resulting adjustments to equitable shares.
When seen from multiple perspectives, Pawlowski's presentation of fair ownership of
family properties reveals his argument's strengths and shortcomings. Expert study of seminal
2
Johannesen, N., Miethe, J., & Weishaar, D. (2022). Homes Incorporated: Offshore Ownership of Real Estate in the U.K. SSRN Electronic Journal
. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4309211
legal decisions like Stack v. Dowden and Fowler v. Barron supports the author's claims. The
essay provides a persuasive description of the setting where the assumption of shared beneficial
ownership functions by basing the notion on pertinent cases. However, the article might need
more accurate since it glosses over relevant details. The article briefly discusses Lord
Neuberger's perspective on the following trust solution, but it may benefit from a broader
examination of the issue
3
. The study may have enlarged the conceptual framework by probing
the theoretical foundations of equitable ownership.
The presumption of joint beneficial ownership should be preceded by carefully
considering its fairness and justice. This presumption holds that spouses share equally in the
property's advantages and burdens. The principle of fairness in relationships is upheld when
those who cannot give materially are nonetheless recognized for their efforts. However, the
integrity of this concept is debatable. This might lead to the main financial contributor (or
anybody else in a weak position) being pressured into an unfavorable ownership arrangement.
When a claimant receives an assumed 50% ownership of a property while contributing just a tiny
amount of money, the fairness of the assumption is called into question.
When one spouse has made significant financial contributions, the assumption of joint
beneficial ownership might lead to complications. This example illustrates the unfairness of the
belief since it may need to consider the different financial situations of co-owners. This
presumption has been claimed to be unjust since it disregards one party's financial investment in
3
Cheffins, Brian R. (2001). Does Law Matter? The Separation of Ownership and Control in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Legal Studies
, 30
(2), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1086/322052
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
the property by discounting their share of the purchase price, mortgage payments, and other
expenditures. The assumption's rigidity might cause unfair results even if that is not the parties'
intention. The premise isn't in line with the actual goals of the co-owners if they haven't
discussed or reconciled their benefit interests. Others have noted that it is only sometimes
possible to consider the ever-changing dynamics of relationships and contributions when
assuming shared ownership. Since capital expenditures may be viewed differently than monthly
cash payments, it may need to manage better circumstances in which one party makes substantial
improvements to the property after acquisition.
Rather than assuming shared beneficial ownership, Lord Neuberger suggests a trust
option for jointly held family homes. According to him, the trust method should guarantee that
all parties purchasing an asset get their fair share of the profits. This suggests that the ownership
percentages reflect the actual financial contributions made by each party. When a cohabiting
couple has acquired property, Lord Neuberger feels that this approach is preferable owing to
practical factors. He warns there is less room for maneuver when two people share ownership of
an item. One practical reason against adopting Lord Neuberger's assumption of equality
approach is that some joint property agreements fail to establish explicit goals for fair ownership.
When spouses show these pacts, they don't have to consider the possibility of divorce or any
other major life upheaval. Unfair and unequal outcomes may occur if the assumption of shared
beneficial ownership is applied because it is based on a common aim that may not exist owing to
a lack of communication.
Lord Neuberger also notes that combined property purchases may or may not be
successful for reasons other than a common purpose. The lender's desire for a large number of
borrowers, the solicitor's personal preference, and the terms and conditions of the transaction
might all play a role. It is compatible with reality to reject the assumption of equality since many
married couples avoid discussing how they would split the beneficial interest in the property they
acquire. Instead, they may divide the costs in proportion to their ownership position in the
company. The trust arrangement is more complicated than it seems when weighed against the
advantages and expenses of adopting shared beneficial ownership
4
. The resulting trust has
advantages due to its malleability, and its assets are directly linked to the donors' contributions. It
ensures that people who have invested more in the property also benefit from it. This method
advances equity because it recognizes the worth of individuals' monetary contributions and
sacrifices. The trust solution that emerged has its benefits but has specific problems. It might be
challenging to implement if the parties still need to maintain thorough records of their respective
financial contributions. Without proper paperwork, a court may need help establishing equitable
ownership. In addition, the resultant trust structure may differ from the values of justice and
equality if the parties seek to equally distribute the costs and benefits of property ownership
regardless of who paid for what.
However, when the parties' interests are aligned, it is far easier to proceed on the premise
of shared beneficial ownership than under the assumption of separate ownership. The approach
has certain drawbacks, too, such as its rigidity and the possibility of uneven consequences if
goals need to be clearly articulated.
4
Murphy, T., & Ting, X. (2012). Home Ownership and Its Consequences: Some China-UK Comparisons. Journal of Comparative Law
, 7
, 194. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/jrnatila7&div=31&id=&page=
The resultant trust is a legal notion with broader application in the context of business
transactions than only residential real estate. The formed trust may be used to distribute the funds
to the contributors. The purpose of a trust created when many people pool their resources to buy
a company or piece of land is to ensure that asset ownership is distributed fairly and equitably
among the participants. This tactic is consistent with the businesslike character of joint
ownership, which is generally motivated by financial reasons rather than emotional ties. To
further the cause of equality among investors, the trust established here would ensure that
ownership accurately represents the true economics of the investment. It may be helpful even if
the trust's beneficiaries don't have a tight bond. The belief that ensues may be legally enforced,
and the parties do not have to assume shared beneficial ownership. The parallels between
marriage and cohabitation need a clear delineation between the two. However, analyzing the
participant's goals and financial investments is more crucial than ever without that connection. A
trust might be an excellent solution if many individuals you know want to buy a home together
but need help deciding how to divide the ownership. In the absence of a strong connection and
shared goals, this application takes into account the need for justice.
The established trust may be used in various contexts to advance justice and fairness,
expanding its range of practical applications. When financial investments are matched with
property ownership, there is less likelihood of shareholder disagreement and more
encouragement of open communication inside organizations. The resultant trust protects the
interests of all participants by preventing the assumption of shared beneficial ownership from
overcoming the efforts of those with less-than-close links. This ensures that everyone's interests
are looked after.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
However, the trust built up as a result comes with conditions. It may not be easy to implement,
and you must intensively review your financial facts and objectives. Establishing equitable
ownership may be difficult or impossible when the parties involved have not maintained precise
records of their contributions. When a property is owned by several persons whose incomes are
substantially different from one another, the necessities of the situation may need more than trust.
Building trust between them is essential when conducting commercial transactions or dealing
with other circumstances when the individuals involved do not know one another very well. It is
flexible and equitable in that it may be adapted to meet the requirements of individuals whose
incomes and objectives vary from one another. However, for it to succeed, all of the pertinent
financial information must be made public, and all stakeholders must be truthful about their
goals.
Consequently, the trust established may only be the best option in specific scenarios. Still, it is a
powerful legal tool for addressing concerns of equitable property ownership. When determining
what constitutes equitable property ownership, this situation demonstrates how important it is to
balance practicality and justice.
This summary and study of M. Pawlowski's "Ownership of the Family Home - What
Role the Resulting Trust?" examines his case for fair property division in the housing market. In
this article, I will explore the equality assumption, the resultant trust's alternative viewpoint, the
practical reasons for rejecting the equality presumption, and the many scenarios in which these
principles could be used. The paper's strengths lay in its in-depth assessment of the challenges
involved with family property ownership and the consideration of practical ramifications,
illustrated with legal examples. A more robust theoretical underpinning and an impartial
examination of contrasting perspectives may be helpful. The appropriateness of a trust or a
presumption of shared beneficial ownership depends on the facts of each instance. In
professional or impersonal contexts, the ensuing feeling of confidence is helpful since it
encourages greater flexibility and fairness. Assuming shared ownership may speed up progress
but also have unforeseen effects. For property ownership conflicts within families to be resolved
fairly, a comprehensive approach is required to consider both legal principles and the particulars
of each case.
References
Cheffins, Brian R. (2001). Does Law Matter? The Separation of Ownership and Control in the
United
Kingdom. The
Journal
of
Legal
Studies
, 30
(2),
459–484.
https://doi.org/10.1086/322052
Johannesen, N., Miethe, J., & Weishaar, D. (2022). Homes Incorporated: Offshore Ownership of
Real Estate in the U.K. SSRN Electronic Journal
. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4309211
Murphy, T., & Ting, X. (2012). Home Ownership and Its Consequences: Some China-UK
Comparisons. Journal
of
Comparative
Law
, 7
,
194.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?
handle=hein.journals/jrnatila7&div=31&id=&page=
Pawlowski, M. (2022). Ownership of the family home-what role the resulting trust?.
Family
Law
,
52
, 803-807.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help