Land - Licences & Proprietary Estoppel (3)

3. In 1996 John and Karen became lovers. They were both married at the time and living with their spouses. In 1998 Karen became pregnant by John and he bought a house for her to live in with their daughter. The house was conveyed into John’s sole name and he paid both the deposit on the purchase price, the bills and the mortgage payments. For three years John provided support for Karen and their child. In 2001 Karen found a job and thereafter supported herself and the child as well as spending money on maintaining and decorating the house. On several occasions Karen asked John why he hadn’t put the house in their joint names, and he replied that it was better to wait till they were married. He told her that she would always have a roof over her head and that she would get the house on his death. John died recently, leaving everything to his wife, Wilma. Wilma wants to have the house sold.
Advise Karen

Argue as constructive trust
1. John bought the house so as to live together with Karen
2. John makes excuses to joint names
- Evidence of common intention of sharing beneficial ownership
3. John has no intention of sharing beneficial ownership but he has created the impression that he has the intention
- Wait till they are married: promise of future coownership, so not present coownership?
=> Court will likely to use broad brush approach

Argue as proprietary estoppel
1. Representation: John has promised a place for Karen to stay till she dies (= life interest, licence for life); and has promised her the house on his death
2. Detriment: Spending money on maintaining and decorating the house – enough as detriment?
3. Reliance?4. Remedy: most likely compensation as it is a clean break; the amount will be a balance between maximum and minimum (not likely granted any kind of ownership as it will force an on-going relationship between Wilma and Karen which is not practical