LAWS 2201 Lecture 8: Persons and Property- nov 21
16 Dec 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Persons and Property: Rights of Property and Family
Murdoch v. Murdoch
Facts: -Married couple split up after owning and operating a ranch together. Ms. Murdoch
claims that she is entitled to half the business because she says she contributed financially as a
partnership of the business and parts of the business was paid for by money that came from
her account. Mr. Murdoch said she never gave him money by means of partnership, that she
took the money from Ms. Nash and then gave it to him.
Issues: Is Ms. Murdoch legally entitled to half of the assets even though they officially belong to
Mr. Murdoch?
- Is the fact that Ms. Murdoch did a significant amount of physical labour, enough merit
to give her half of the properties.
- Whether a resultig trust exists
Ratio:
1. Majority- no common intention to share since wife did no more than any other Alberta
housewife
2. Dissent- Wife is a beneficial owner of a portion of the ranch business on the basis of a
ostrutie trust
Pettkus v. Becker
Facts: - Lothar Pettkus owned a bee keeping business and ran it with Miss Becker. They were in
a relationship but never got married. She contributed substantially to the business. Mr. Pettkus
saved money over the years while Ms. Becker paid for most living expense. Mr. Pettkuss used
the money he saved to buy the bee-keeper’s far ad it as purhased i his ae. They then
purhased to ore properties for the expasio of the usiess, oth i Mr.Pettkus’ ae.
Ms. Becker moved out a couple times, after the last time, the situation went to trial where she
was awarded 40 bee hives, and at appeal she was awarded one half of the business and all land
that was owned by Mr. Pettkus.
Issues: Was there either a resulting or a constructive trust that could be used to get spouse a
share of the business
Ratio:
- Permitting a spouse to work for nothing for 19 years knowing that she reasonably
anticipated getting a share of the business on a break up creates and unjust enrichment
- In this case the court imposed a constructive trust on the legal owner of the property to
hold in trust for the non-titled party
Caratun v. Caratun
Facts: Mr. Caratun married Ms. Caratun which allowed him to immigrate to Canada and get a
dental degree so he could practice here. Shortly after getting his degree he separated from his
wife.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Persons and property: rights of property and family. Facts: -married couple split up after owning and operating a ranch together. Ms. murdoch claims that she is entitled to half the business because she says she contributed financially as a partnership of the business and parts of the business was paid for by money that came from her account. Mr. murdoch said she never gave him money by means of partnership, that she took the money from ms. nash and then gave it to him. Issues: is ms. murdoch legally entitled to half of the assets even though they officially belong to. Is the fact that ms. murdoch did a significant amount of physical labour, enough merit to give her half of the properties. Ratio: majority- no common intention to share since wife did no more than any other alberta housewife, dissent- wife is a beneficial owner of a portion of the ranch business on the basis of a (cid:862)(cid:272)o(cid:374)stru(cid:272)ti(cid:448)e trust(cid:863)
