Murdoch v. Murdoch – Divorce – Division of Marital Property
Murdoch v. Murdoch, [1975] 1 SCR 423, 13 RFL 185, [1974] 1 WWR 361, 41 DLR (3d) 367 [Alta.] (Canada 1974).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This Canadian family law case involved an appeal from the dismissal of a claim by a wife to a one-half interest in ranch property held solely in the name of her husband.
FACTS: Ms. Murdoch (W) performed chores on several ranches which were bought and sold prior to the purchase of the ranch in question. Mr. Murdoch (H) admitted that W had been involved in a number of activities related to the actual running of the ranches. W’s earnings were used to make the down payment on the initial ranch property whose proceeds were later reinvested in subsequent properties. Her earnings were used to buy all the household furniture and appliances except a stove. The land and other ranch assets were held in H’s name only and W sought one half of those assets. The trial court found in favor of H and W appealed.
ISSUE: Under what circumstances will a spouse be entitled to a beneficial interest in a matrimonial home when the legal estate is solely vested in the other spouse?
RULE OF LAW: A beneficial interest in a matrimonial home, when the legal estate is solely vested in the other spouse, will only arise when the court is satisfied by the words of conduct of the parties that it was their common intention that the beneficial interest was not to belong solely to the spouse with title.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The Pettitt decision disposed of the idea that a judge has discretionary jurisdiction to pass proprietary interests from one spouse to the other. For a party to have a claim to a beneficial interest in land, even a spouse, the party vested in the legal estate must hold it as a trustee on trust. Only then will the claimant have a beneficial interest in the estate as a cestui que trust.
Any gift of a beneficial interest in land must be in writing. If there is no writing such a trust can only take effect as a resulting, implied, or constructive trust. Whenever the trustee has so conducted himself that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny to the cestui que trust a beneficial interest in the land acquired, a trust implied by law will arise. In this case the words of conduct of the parties do not show that it was their common intention that the beneficial interest was not to belong solely to the spouse with title.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
DISSENT: W worked to improve the lot of her family for 15 years and there is no reason to treat her contributions to the family as less significant than a direct financial contribution. It would be valid to translate her contributions to the family into the assets acquired especially when the labor is not simply housekeeping. The appropriate mechanism to give relief to a spouse who cannot prove a common intention is a constructive trust, which does not depend on evidence of intention. Such a trust would arise in equity based on unjust enrichment and its formation is not based on intent.