equitable lien

In common-law countries, equitable liens give rise to unique and difficult issues.

Equitable liens are an unusual species of property right, usually considered sui generis.

Two additional equitable remedies are the equitable lien and the constructive trust.

The defendants argued that only an equitable lien was available, and the beneficiaries should only receive the amount taken.

Equitable liens are slightly amorphous forms of security interest that only arise by operation of law in certain circumstances.

Equitable liens normally only arise in very specific factual circumstances, such as unpaid vendor's lien.

However, common-law countries also recognize a slightly anomalous form of security interest called an "equitable lien" which arises in certain rare instances.

An equitable lien is actually a legal remedy, rather than a security interest created in contemplation of or in support of a transaction.

Alternatively, the claimant could elect for an equitable lien instead, which is like a mortgage over the asset to secure repayment.

An equitable lien is a non-possessory security right conferred by operation of law, which is similar in effect to an equitable charge.

It is a matter of conjecture how far equitable liens extend outside of the unpaid vendor's lien.

Equitable liens have been held to exist in a number of cases involving choses in action, but not yet in relation to chattels.

Lord Millett held that both a proprietary remedy and an equitable lien were available, and the beneficiary could take whichever is the most advantageous.

By contrast, equitable restitution sought to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on specific funds or property that were in the defendant's possession.

Mid Atlantic was not simply seeking to recover from the Sereboffs' assets generally, but rather to recover through a constructive trust or equitable lien on a specifically identified fund.

The Court of Appeal held the claimants could only get an equitable lien over the proceeds of the policy to secure the repayment of the fourth and fifth premiums.

In the United States, references to an "equitable lien" is a right, enforceable only in equity, to have a demand satisfied out of a particular fund or specific property without having possession of the fund or property.

The equitable lien of the vendor of land, who has conveyed the property without receiving payment of the purchase money, is quite independent of possession, and gives a right to have the property sold under an order of the court.

Under the rule of equity set forth in Barnes, Mid Atlantic could "follow a portion of the recovery into the Sereboffs' hands as soon as the settlement fund was identified, and impose on that portion a constructive trust or equitable lien."

In Lord Napier & Etterick v Hunter [1993] 2 WLR 42 it was held that an indemnity insurer's subrogation rights in relation to funds improperly paid directly to the insured were subject to an equitable lien.

In Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67 a vendor of a reversionary interest in a trust fund, who sold the interest to the trustee, was held to have an equitable lien in the subject matter, although it was clearly personalty and not realty.

The House of Lords said that the beneficiaries could choose between either: (a) a constructive trust over the proceeds for the proportion of the life insurance payout purchased with their money; or (b) an equitable lien over the fund for the repayment of that amount.

It is conferred only in very limited circumstances, the most common (and least ambiguous) of which is in relation to the sale of land; an unpaid vendor has an equitable lien over the land for the purchase price, notwithstanding that the purchaser has gone into occupation of the property.

In Barker v Cox (1876) 4 Ch D 464 the purchaser of property which was included in a matrimonial settlement paid the price in advance to one of the trustees, and the purchaser was held to have an equitable lien in investments which the trustees subsequently acquired with the purchase price.

An equitable lien takes effect essentially as an equitable charge, and they arise only in specified situations, (e.g. an unpaid vendor's lien in relation to property is an equitable lien; a maritime lien is sometimes thought to be an equitable lien).