Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92

A father supplied the purchase money for copyhold property placed in the names of himself, his wife and a son for successive lives. After the parents died, a dispute arose between the son named in the grant and another son claiming through the father's will. The claimant argued that payment of the whole price meant the father had retained beneficial ownership, which could pass under his will. The defendant relied on the familial arrangement as an advancement to him. The dispute therefore required consideration of both a purchase-money resulting trust and the countervailing presumption of advancement.

Where a father pays for property put into a child's name, how does the purchase-money resulting-trust presumption interact with the presumption of advancement?

Eyre CB stated the classic rule that beneficial ownership presumptively follows the person supplying the purchase money, even where title is taken in another name or several names. That proposition was not absolute. A transfer into a child's name raised the further question whether the parent intended an advancement. The reported decision dismissed the claim against the son named in the grant, treating his interest as an advancement rather than as property retained beneficially by the father. The case therefore illustrates both presumptions, not a universal victory for whoever paid. Evidence of an actual intention, where established, governs the beneficial result rather than the mechanical application of a presumption.

Payment of the purchase price for property in another's name normally raises a presumption of resulting trust, subject to contrary evidence and any applicable presumption of advancement. Legal title, payment and the relationship of the parties must be considered together.

Dyer supplies the familiar starting point for purchase-money resulting trusts, but quoting the rule without its advancement qualification misrepresents the case. Compare Fowkes v Pascoe, where evidence of a gift rebutted a resulting-trust presumption without requiring that counter-presumption. In a modern family-home problem, students must also consider whether the common-intention approach, rather than a simple purchase-money calculation, governs the dispute. The classification of the transaction is therefore important before any presumption is applied.