Murray v Murray

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Date: 01 January 1996
• Docket Number: [1993 No. 8582P]
• Court: High Court

Murray v. Murray

Ian Murray

Plaintiff

and

Michael Murray

Defendant

[1993 No. 8582P]

High Court

Equity - Constructive trust - Legal owner of house - Three quarters of purchase value financed by mortgage - Legal owner's sister living in house and discharging mortgage - Whether sister entitled to three quarters of beneficial interest in house.

Equity - Gift - Legal owner of house indicating intention to execute deed of transfer to sister if balance of mortgage and other monies discharged - Sister discharging mortgage and monies - Sister dying before deed of transfer executed - Whether equity would force legal owner to perfect gift

In 1957 the defendant financed the construction of a house for himself and his wife by obtaining a mortgage for three quarters of the cost and providing the balance from his own resources. However, the defendant and his wife never resided in the house, and in 1959 he entered into an agreement with his parents whereby he became entitled to their premises and they were to reside in the newly-constructed house. In fact the first person to live in the house was the defendant's sister, E.M., who continued to reside in the house until her death in April, 1988. During this time, E.M. discharged the mortgage instalments and paid rent and rates. The defendant paid the insurance. In 1962, the defendant's parents also moved into the house, with the plaintiff who was then two and a half years old. The plaintiff was the son of another sister of the defendant. The defendant's parents died in 1967 and 1972.

In 1973, the defendant's solicitors prepared documents transferring the house to E.M., but E.M. never executed the documents. In 1988, the defendant indicated that he would execute a transfer to E.M. if she discharged the balance of the mortgage and certain other charges. E.M. did so, but died before the deed of transfer had been executed.

After E.M.'s death, the plaintiff continued to reside in the house. In 1992, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant, after which the defendant claimed rent. The plaintiff did not pay any rent. In 1993, the defendant was granted letters of administration to the estate of E.M. He prepared a schedule of assets which did not include the house. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the entire beneficial interest in the house was vested in E.M. at the date of her death. The defendant counterclaimed for rent from the plaintiff for the period commencing on E.M.'s death.

Held by Barron J., in declaring that at the date of E.M.'s death she was entitled to three quarters of the beneficial interest in the house and refusing the defendant's counterclaim, 1, that while it was clear that the defendant intended to benefit E.M. and would have done so had she remained alive, equity could not force him to perfect the gift as E.M. was a mere volunteer in relation to the gift.

2. That although the proposed gift was dependent on the payments to be made by E.M., which had in fact been made, no claim had been made in contract.

3. That the law would impose a constructive trust in all circumstances where it would be unjust and unconscionable not to do so.

Hussey v. Palmer [1972]...