LLB FAMILY LAW (Coursework) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

LLB FAMILY jurisprudence (Coursework) - Essay ExampleIn this case the home in question is the business firm, which though held in capital of Minnesotas name, Lauren has an interest in because of their shared history in it and the fact that she did make a ploughshare of some sort to Pauls acquisition of it. A constructive combining is implied in rectitude in both a internal and a commercial context. In this instance it is in the domestic context. The main features of the constructive trust are that it relies upon three basic components, the first of which is roughhewn intention. There was thence common intention in the coming unitedly of Lauren and Paul in their living together. There has non been up to straight off not been any agreement among the two parties, Lauren and Paul either directly or in an implied manner, been an agreement that they would be sharing the house out for the purpose of benefiting from it separately. The common intention was that they await togethe r in the house, even though its title was under Pauls name, Lauren was able to suffer her part in the common interest by paying for the receipts bills and assisting with household expenses and thus freed up Pauls income for use in servicing the mortgage of the property or paying for its acquisition. By contributing towards the household expenses and the utility bills she therefore can claim to have made a substantial contribution towards Pauls acquisition of the said property. She thus has rights under constructive trust, to the use of the property. The common intention is both implied and actual even in the absence of any written agreement. The absence of a written or structured agreement cannot therefore negate Laurens right to the use of the property in question and therefore she is entitled to stay there together with the children that resulted from and during their cohabitation.1 The fact that they have lived together for such a long time anchors the argument of common inten tions to live together even though they are not married. The second component of constructive trust is the detrimental reliance by the claimant. By detriment here is included the things that Lauren had to give up or make do without in do to ensure that Paul was able to acquire the property the fact that she had to forego her job and chose to be a stay at home mother and take care of the children and also the fact that she gave up her deposit benefits to be used in the common household expenses and also the fact that she paid some of the utility bills. These are all factors to be considered in looking at the common intention constructive trust that protects the contribution that Lauren put into this enterprise. Lauren continued to live with Paul in the house even when the relationship became drive and even when she was treated to continued verbal abuse. She had every right to continue staying there and even now she has the right to stay there since the agreement that was in place that they would live together in the house is still in effect. And she has every right to go back there, together with her children, as long as she is assured that there will not be a return to the abusive and violent behaviour. Lauren, by virtue of her contribution to the acquisition of the property in question, would therefore suffer if the court or rightfulness determined that she was not entitled to its fair use and occupation. She should therefore have her constructive tr