law... and equity...?
--------------------
Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834
Facts: Appellant developed over the years a successful beekeeping business. He owned two rural Ontario properties, where the business was conducted, and had the proceeds from the sale in 1974 of a third property located in Quebec. Respondent through her labour and earnings contributed substantially to the good fortune of the common enterprise. Although unmarried, appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife for 19 years, save for a three-month separation in 1972. When the relationship terminated in late 1974, respondent commenced an action seeking a declaration of entitlement to one-half interest in the lands and a share in the business.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The respondent's claim to an interest in the appellant's assets could not be sustained on the basis of a resulting trust. The trial judge had held that there was no common intention, express or implied, a finding which the Court of Appeal did not overrule and which the Court was not prepared to disturb. Constructive trust was therefore the only basis on which the respondent could succeed. The imposition of a constructive trust depended on the existence of an unjust enrichment. Where there was an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation and the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment, an unjust enrichment could be said to exist. On the facts of the case. the first two requirements were clearly satisfied: the appellant had had the benefit of 19 years of unpaid labour, while the respondent had received little or nothing in return. As to the third requirement, the respondent having prejudiced herself in the reasonable expectation of receiving an interest in property, and the appellant having freely accepted the benefits conferred by the respondent in circumstances where he knew or ought to have known of her reasonable expectation, it would be unjust to allow him to retain those benefits. The necessary causal connection between the acquisition of property and corresponding deprivation was established. The indirect contribution of money and direct contribution of labour by the respondent was clearly linked to the acquisition of the property whose beneficial ownership was in dispute. There was no reason in principle to exclude common-law relationships from the application of the constructive trust doctrine.
--------------------
from the Devil's Dictionary:
LAW, n.
Once Law was sitting on the bench,
And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
"Clear out!" he cried, "disordered wench!
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees if you appear,
'Tis plain your have no standing here."
Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
"Your status? -- devil seize you!"
"Amica curiae," she replied --
"Friend of the court, so please you."
"Begone!" he shouted -- "there's the door --
I never saw your face before!"
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
--------------------
Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834
Facts: Appellant developed over the years a successful beekeeping business. He owned two rural Ontario properties, where the business was conducted, and had the proceeds from the sale in 1974 of a third property located in Quebec. Respondent through her labour and earnings contributed substantially to the good fortune of the common enterprise. Although unmarried, appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife for 19 years, save for a three-month separation in 1972. When the relationship terminated in late 1974, respondent commenced an action seeking a declaration of entitlement to one-half interest in the lands and a share in the business.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The respondent's claim to an interest in the appellant's assets could not be sustained on the basis of a resulting trust. The trial judge had held that there was no common intention, express or implied, a finding which the Court of Appeal did not overrule and which the Court was not prepared to disturb. Constructive trust was therefore the only basis on which the respondent could succeed. The imposition of a constructive trust depended on the existence of an unjust enrichment. Where there was an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation and the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment, an unjust enrichment could be said to exist. On the facts of the case. the first two requirements were clearly satisfied: the appellant had had the benefit of 19 years of unpaid labour, while the respondent had received little or nothing in return. As to the third requirement, the respondent having prejudiced herself in the reasonable expectation of receiving an interest in property, and the appellant having freely accepted the benefits conferred by the respondent in circumstances where he knew or ought to have known of her reasonable expectation, it would be unjust to allow him to retain those benefits. The necessary causal connection between the acquisition of property and corresponding deprivation was established. The indirect contribution of money and direct contribution of labour by the respondent was clearly linked to the acquisition of the property whose beneficial ownership was in dispute. There was no reason in principle to exclude common-law relationships from the application of the constructive trust doctrine.
cf. problems re enforcement: Becker eventually committed suicide, in “protest” against the legal system – lawyer’s fees consumed the bulk of the judgment, the rest of the claim being settled out of court between Pettkus and the trustees of Becker’s estate
--------------------
from the Devil's Dictionary:
LAW, n.
Once Law was sitting on the bench,
And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
"Clear out!" he cried, "disordered wench!
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees if you appear,
'Tis plain your have no standing here."
Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
"Your status? -- devil seize you!"
"Amica curiae," she replied --
"Friend of the court, so please you."
"Begone!" he shouted -- "there's the door --
I never saw your face before!"
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
--------------------
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 09:45
0 comments
