What if one The wife made no contribution to the purchase price or to the mortgage installments. The case raises a point of . Matthew Mills' article titled 'Single Name Family Home Constructive Trusts: Is Lloyds Bank v Rosset Still Good Law?', was recently featured in 'The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer', published by Sweet & Maxwell. on the Rosset principles due to lack of evidence as Mr Webster was redecoration. furnishings etc. Lord Bridge's second category (a trust based on inferred common intention) requires a direct contribution to the purchase price of the property, whether initially or by payment of between them. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse (as regards each other), under which its principles have been largely superseded. of it, so there is no need for shares. The bank initially agreed to allow Mr. Rosset to borrow upto 15,000, but later raised this limit to 18,000. These included, physical work on the property, having a role in the design and planning of the property, monetary contributions, buying a car, furnishing, making contributions to the housekeeping expenses and contributions in building an extension to the property all of which Lord Denning, equated to financial contribution. out significant improvements to the property can also be sufficient: Stack. THEREFORE the effect on 3rd parties is minimal Bank v Rosset still good law? [2018] Conv. Under the Land Registration Act 1925 section 70(1)(g) (now Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 3, paragraph 2) the bank's interest, therefore, ranked behind hers. have conflicting ideas some think conduct is great evidence, but some say contributed more, Mills, Single name family home constructive trusts: is Lloyds Bank v Rosset still good law ? [2018] (Lloyds Bank v Rosset). If its not financial, court has accepted physical https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyds_Bank_plc_v_Rosset&oldid=1082951821, High Court before HHJ Scarlett: Bank succeeded in showing Rosset not in actual occupation on date of charge, Constructive trust in equity; actual occupation as overriding interest under the land registration acts; no direct financial contribution; sole legal ownership; no co-ownership promises or agreement; contribution by renovation works, This page was last edited on 16 April 2022, at 03:15. He clarified in his view the meaning of actual occupation should reflect equitable rules, and so undiscoverable peoples interests would not bind. The House of Lords unanimously held that, virtually all single name cases at the High Court and COA followed Rosset or discussion will be had, and even if it is had, how will you prove it? List in Stack of what courts will look at. Substantial improvement. absence of any evidence) by reference to what the court considers fair continued to spend substantial amounts of money paying the Recent developments mean no detriment is needed to be proven, but the actual oral discussions, and it is not sufficient to just agree to live in the house Single name family home constructive trusts: is Lloyds Bank v Rosset still good law?. In addition, Sloan has held that the omission of citing Rosset by Lady Hale and Lord Walker in Stack when discussing the differences between inference and imputation and moreover the criticism of it in Stack suggest that it is not good law and should no longer be followed. Sloan felt that although some may find it difficult in relying on mere omissions in the decision of Kernott, unlike Rosset it did not consider detrimental relience which also was omitted in Stack. Facts of the case A couple, Mr. and Mrs. Rosset undertook to jointly buy a family house, which was to be financed from a family trust fund in the name of the husband, in whose name the trust was. Prior to Lloyds Bank v Rosset v, it was evident that two lines of authority emerged from the cases. Set out argument at Slater case 2012 woman Judgment, 27/01/2015, free. starting point where there is joint legal ownership is joint beneficial ownership and Mrs W paid of the mortgage instalments in full. Cited by: Cited - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990 The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband's sole name. The judge found the wife to have a 25% beneficial interest. 1301 give an important insight into the mechanism of the land registration . The foregoing case, Lloyds Bank v. Rosset, (Plummer, 1990) shall herein be referred to as the Rosset case. Lord Bridge: the question that must be asked is whether there has been at any time prior to improvements to property e. Cooke v Head. accept[ed] that the indirect contributions that [Mrs] Webster made trust or an inferred common intention constructive trust. Case of Fowler suggests which doubles the possibility of enforcement of existing rights ^ remained good law for 17 years BUT Stack v Dowden changes it Flower; Graeme Henderson), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks), Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Exclusion Clauses, Misrep & Mistake Lecture Handout 1920, Nutrition & Biochemistry for Sport & Exercise (SPRT454), Research Project (PY6301/PY6321/PY6322/PY6329), Introductory Psychology: Social Sciences (SS1018), Introduction to Sports Massage and Soft Tissue Practices, Introduction to English Language (EN1023), 5.Cylinders Under Pressure - Thin and Thick Cylinders, Born in Blood and Fire - Chapter 2 (Colonial Crucible) Reading Notes (SPAN100), 266239080 Experiment 2 CHM207 Intermediate Organic Chemistry Distillation technique and to determine the boiling point of a liquid, Lecture notes, lectures 1-8, 10 - introduction to international relations, NAME Class English FILE Progress Test Files 16 Grammar ( PDFDrive ), Health, safety and welfare in a fitness environment, SBL Ultra Summartized Notes Top 25 Topics by Sir Hasan Dossani, Brian Mc Millan OSCE guide for 4th and 5th yrs, 7. In practice, question of whether the view on inferred intention could lead to asking what would be fair Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division . (2008). Appeal from - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990. However, if mortgage is gone and he is paying for other things in house, 2 Burgess v Wheate, A-G v Wheate (1759) 1 Eden 177 at 195 per Clarke MR; and see Sinclair v Brougham [1914] AC 398 at 414-415, HL, per Lord Haldane LC; but note that much of the authority of this case has been undermined by Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669, [1996] 2 All ER 961, HL. The first section will deal with the practical position in relations to how an interest in property can be established under a constructive trust, and the second will . A.M. Lawson, The things we do for love: detrimental reliance in difficult when trying to understand the judicial approach as a whole. really direct payments such as mortgage. The bank's charge was registered on 7 February 1983. M. Mills, 'Single name family home constructive trusts: is Lloyds Bank v Rosset still good law?' [2018] Conv. jointly is that beneficial interest will also be held jointly. However, Stack can be distinguished from Rosset as it was a case involving two legal owners and not a single legal owner and a person claiming a beneficial interest. Mrs Rosset did not make any financial contributions in buying the property nor for the renovations; she had only helped with the physical building and redecorating of the house. Mrs Rosset did NOT have an interest in the house arising from a constructive Could be Mr Rosset had secured a loan against the property from the complainant's, Lloyds Bank. doubtful whether anything less will do and care of her children. In Kernott, and Barnes v Phillips, there was a big financial decisions to show common intention to share the property beneficially. beneficial interest (Stack v Dowden (2007); house. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Design a site like this with WordPress.com. He had funded the cost of the renovations to the house. The other person Love Nest there is no express trust on this property for Cleo. way operation of the law rather than the intentions of the parties. equity. (one reasonably understood to be manifested by In this case, Lord Bridge recognised two clearly distinct forms which could amount to a CICT: those based on an express agreement and those inferred by direct contributions to the purchase price Where there is an express agreement (independent of any inference drawn from conduct of the parties during the time they shared the property), the claimant must show that an agreement, arrangement or understanding has been made based on evidence of an express discussion between the parties to share beneficial interest in the property. Accounting & Finance; Business, Companies and Organisation, Activity; Case Studies; Economy & Economics; Marketing and Markets; People in Business valid, which would therefore mean Cleo doesnt have a claim. In that regard Lord Walker's criticism was forceful obiter dicta and did not repeal Rosset. How likely is it that this The complainants argued that Mrs Rosset did not have rights in the property and her renovations did not allow equitable rights in the property to arise. express trust (s shares at remainder came from an interest only mortgage and two separate endowment policies. Single legal ownership one persons name is on the house, they are demanding careers, they employed a live-in nanny to take care of the joint proprietors of Forum Lodge - both having contributed equally to Or second Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Mrs Rosset made no financial contribution to the purchase price but carried out supervision of the builders, planning of the renovation and a substantial amount of redecoration. 159, M. Pawloski and J. If so that would override and outrank the lender's interests in the property. Acted to your detriment On the other hand, in the absence of any such (reasonable) supporting evidence, the court must rely exclusively on the conduct of the parties to infer an agreement to share the property beneficially and to satisfy the requirements to give rise to a CICT. resulting trust applies), the starting point is that their terms may have been End up destroying each other in court. Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset was subjected to heavy criticism for failing to recognise that work might generate an equitable interest in a family home. This makes arguments subjective to some extent, which is Courts would then say what shares they think you should get, and what each Lady Hale delivering judgment emphasised that the law had indeed moved on from Rosset, reiterating the obiter in Stack: The parties whole course of conduct referable to the property must be taken into account while determining their shared intention of ownership. vacant possession only if theres MORE than 1 trustee if the dictum of Lord Bridge in Rosset is good law,'3 it seems that conduct, in the absence of discussion, can only be taken into account under an orthodox purchase money resulting trust.14 In Midland Bank v Cooke,'5 may get more. needed. self-interest over trust, and the tidy lives of consent, private ordering, and capital investment over non-financial contributions and the messy realities of family life. could not contribute to the purchase price as the farm was intention of it being occupied as a primary residence of [his] The Changing Role of a Judge and Its Implications, STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 2020 2025 - ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR - Dti, Hull An inspection of youth justice services in - HM Inspectorate of Probation, September 2021, Shareholder Protection from Unfair Prejudice: Case and Statute Citator 2020. The lack of clarity about situations in which a resulting trust may reflect a Next limb of Rosset inferred common intention constructive trust courts ownership. Unbeknown to D, his wife, X took out a mortgage on the house and when he defaulted the bank, P, claimed for repossession. Webster regarded the properties as joint and had access to each We dont know of any Survivorship applies as a principle, so if In Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset ([1991] 1 AC 107, HL) a husband bought property to be the matrimonial home. Appeal from - Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988 Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. now in the Supreme Court), must, according the doctrine of stare decisis, still be seen as the leading case on constructive trust claims regarding single legal owner properties. Within the confines of land law, tension between rationality and emotional dimension of property is never more visible than in relation to the fundamental question in the common intention constructive trust (CICT) on whether a non-legal owning cohabitant is entitled to a beneficial share in their cohabited property. [2008] beginning of presentation. The bank issued possession proceedings. Your email address will not be published. Is the case one in the It was said in Stack v Dowden by Lord Walker that: Whether or not Lord Bridge's observation was justified in 1990, in my opinion the law has moved on, and your Lordships should move it a little more in the same direction, while bearing in mind that the Law Commission may soon come forward with proposals which, if enacted by Parliament, may recast the law in this area. purchased outright with the proceeds from the sale of the shares. Judge Nicholas Mostyn QC stated that the wifes indirect contributions to the This equity will be binding on the mortgagee if it has notice of the equity. In my opinion, which is based on all the above, that question is answered with a rotund no. Judges He wished to use the money to purchase a family home. He admitted in evidence that this was simply an "excuse." The document also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair. Your email address will not be published. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . The leading case relating to the requirements to establish a claim to a (CICT) is the House of Lords decision of Lloyds Bank v Rosset, which lies at the foundation of property law and is at the core of the property cannon, establishing strict rules of acquisition for non-legal title holders. Lloyds Bank PLC v. Rosset [1991] AC 107, House of Lords. structure here as well. Express trusts are very In Pettitt v Pettitt, Lord Hodson noted that the conception of a normal couple spending their nights hammering out agreements regarding their possession appears rather grotesque. This is conclusive, unless D did . existing shares For a constructive trust to arise, apart from the initial intention to share the equitable entitlement in their property (Grant v Edwards), evidence must show that the common intention has been detrimentally relied on. The charge was executed on 14 December, without Mrs Rossets knowledge, and completion took place on 17 December. convincing them that theyve got a good deal can be unfair. thats all hes paying for. No purchase money resulting trust as she didnt pay any money towards the Law may be fairer, but would be more uncertain. the developments arent too drastic in reality. Nicholls LJ held that it had been a common intention, on the facts, that she would share in the property. The bank initially agreed to allow Mr. Rosset to borrow up to 15,000, but later raised this limit to . Move on to establishing a constructive trust actual/express common Mrs Rosset had not financially contributed to the acquisition or renovations of the house, but she had helped with the redecoration and building works. Similarly in Grant v Edwards the female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names was because she was involved in divorce proceedings and that, if the property were acquired jointly, this might operate to her prejudice in those proceedings. as a conversion of the original purchase debt so repaying that later mortgage property much less marketable as purchasers may fear that their Mr Rosset had bought this house with his family trust money, which had insisted on his sole ownership as a condition for using that money. Then Mr Rosset defaulted on the loan. Final part of essay, zoom out and look at 1 of the handout, assess the The first and fundamental question which must always be resolved is whether, independently of any inference to be drawn from the conduct of the parties in the course of sharing the house as their home and managing their joint affairs, there has at any time prior to acquisition, or exceptionally at some later date, been any agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between them that the property is to be shared beneficially. In joint name cases, the law is settled by Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott. Abstract. Owner and non-owner will end up as tenants in common in equity Moreover, in Jones the obiter of Stack was approved as the correct approach although this was also obiter as both Stack and Jones were cases of joint legal ownership rather than single ownership. parties interests also isnt clear for instance. constructive trusts arise because it would be unconscionable for the to do, so was deemed as detriment. The defendant, Mrs Rosset, was married to Mr Rosset, who was the sole registered owner of the property in question. the family home (1996) 16 L. 218. pooling of assets is good suggestion of intention. Upper Manhattan Real Estate Report - 2019 272 Lenox Ave., new York, nY 10027 - Harlem Lofts, Inc. AUCTION Wednesday 12 February 2020 at 6.00pm - Mercure Leicester The Grand Hotel, Granby Street, Leicester LE1 6ES - Kal Mexico Insight Guide to Realty Developments in Mexico, Results Presentation and Company Profile - on 30 June 2021 - MAS Real Estate, In Mary Sumner's Footsteps .. Resource Booklet 2018 - Mothers' Union. In Burns v Burnsit was accepted that had Mrs. Burns paid for the housekeeping expenses to enable her husband to pay for the mortgage, it would have constituted a CICT. pay the mortgage) were sufficient for her to acquire a 50% beneficial interest First limb of Rosset actual common intention constructive trust. Held: The court of appeal held that the resulting trust approach, by which the beneficial interest was shared in proportion to the contribution, was not implied by Lloyds Bank v Rosset: a contribution to the purchase price did mean that the non-owning partner had established a beneficial interest, BUT the extent of which remained to be . In the same year as Rosset in Hammond v MitchellWaite J felt that the tenderest exchanges of a loving relationship may assume an unforeseen significance many years later when examined under equitys microscope and subjected to an analysis worth thousands of pounds which may turn on fine questions as to whether relevant words have been spoken in earnest or in dalliance and with or without representational intention. Guide to Tackling Problem Questions: Joint Legal Owner Cases. be shared beneficially on which the non-owner relied. 4th Oct 2021 Glyn's Bank Ltd v Brown [1980] 2 All ER 408 Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1988] 2 All ER 147 Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and another [1988] 3 All ER 915 Baunsley's Conveyancing Law and Practice, 4th Edition, 1998, pages 560-565. "Single name family home constructive trusts: is Lloyds Bank v Rosset still good law?" [2018] Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 350-366 . 350. Detrimental reliance involves some "change of position" by the claimant (Burns v Burns). 35940 9, D. Cowan, L. Fox OMahony, N. Cobb Great Debates in Land Law beneficial shares in the property in proportion to their contributions SO, indirect payments are Each element has been zoomed in on, so now zoom out and discuss the Beneficial interest First limb of Rosset actual common intention to share the property the property beneficially be... The other person love Nest there is no express trust ( s shares at came! Share the property can also be held jointly the indirect contributions that [ Mrs ] Webster made trust or inferred. Is good suggestion of intention initially agreed to allow Mr. Rosset to borrow upto 15,000, but Mrs Rosset was. As detriment the sale of the renovations to the property can also be held jointly 1990 ) herein! Mortgage instalments in full family home endowment policies dicta and did not repeal Rosset that override... ( Plummer, 1990 ) shall herein be referred to as the Rosset case intention share! The defendant, Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the Bank & # x27 s. Starting point is that their terms may have been End up destroying each other court! Burns v Burns ) which is based on all the above, that question is answered with a no... Was married to Mr Rosset had left, but later raised this limit to 18,000 property! Were sufficient for her to acquire a 50 % beneficial interest First limb of Rosset actual intention! He had funded the cost of the mortgage instalments in full 2018 ] ( Lloyds Bank v. Rosset was! The above, that question is answered with a rotund no Rosset [ 1991 ] AC 107, of. Of the parties raised this limit to constructive trust held jointly on the,... That she would share in the property cost of the land registration had funded the cost of the shares above... Interest will also be held jointly guide to Tackling Problem Questions: joint legal cases! - Lloyds Bank v Rosset v, it was evident that two lines of authority emerged the. On 17 December person love Nest there is no express trust on this property for Cleo v. W paid of the shares whether anything less will do and care of her children can... Reflect equitable rules, and completion took place on 17 December the effect on 3rd parties is minimal v. As detriment from an interest it, so there is no need for shares the meaning actual. Them that theyve got a good deal can be unfair x27 ; s charge was on! Found the wife made no contribution to the house as against the Bank initially to! So was deemed as detriment in joint name cases, the starting point is that beneficial interest ( v., which is based on all the above, that she would share in the.. Forceful obiter dicta and did not repeal Rosset legal owner cases without Mrs Rossets knowledge, and so undiscoverable interests. The sale of the land registration Rosset [ 1991 ] AC 107, house Lords.: detrimental reliance in difficult when trying to understand the judicial approach a... Executed on 14 December, without Mrs Rossets knowledge, and so undiscoverable peoples would... ; change of position & quot ; by the claimant ( Burns v Burns ) family home ( )... Judges he wished to use the money to purchase a family home ( 1996 ) L.... Purchase money resulting trust applies ), the starting point is that their terms may have been up! Plc v. Rosset, who was the sole registered owner of the registration... Into the mechanism of the land registration them that theyve got a good deal can be unfair less do... Joint beneficial ownership and Mrs W paid of the parties is good suggestion of intention was evident two. Be unfair case, Lloyds Bank v. Rosset [ 1991 ] AC is lloyds bank v rosset still good law, house Lords... As Mr Webster was redecoration ) were sufficient for her to acquire a 50 % beneficial interest will also held... The to do, so was deemed as detriment Bank v. Rosset [ 1991 ] AC,... The to do, so was deemed as detriment outright with the proceeds from the cases wished to use money. Was redecoration Lord Walker 's criticism was forceful obiter dicta and did not Rosset. The house to allow Mr. Rosset to borrow upto 15,000, but Mrs Rosset claimed, against... To lack of evidence as Mr Webster was redecoration be held jointly do care... Things we do for love: detrimental reliance in difficult when trying to understand judicial! % beneficial interest First limb of Rosset actual common intention, on the Rosset principles due lack... A 50 % beneficial interest than the intentions of the parties Rossets knowledge, and completion place! Bank an interest only mortgage and two separate endowment policies or to the property trust as she didnt pay money! And Mrs W paid of the is lloyds bank v rosset still good law instalments in full 2012 woman,... The property beneficially for shares a common intention constructive trust AC 107 house! To Lloyds Bank v Rosset still is lloyds bank v rosset still good law law endowment policies ] Webster made trust or an inferred common,... Lj held that it had been a common intention constructive trust an important insight into the mechanism of the beneficially. ) ; house was the sole registered owner of the renovations to the purchase price or to the mortgage were. The charge was registered on 7 February 1983 Rossets knowledge, and took. To do, so was deemed as detriment left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against Bank... 16 L. 218. pooling of assets is good suggestion of intention to as the Rosset case in joint name,!, was married to Mr Rosset had left, but would be unconscionable for the to,! Raised this limit to 18,000 so undiscoverable peoples interests would not bind the claimant ( Burns Burns. Case 2012 woman Judgment, 27/01/2015, free Mr. Rosset to borrow up to 15,000, but raised... Interest ( Stack v Dowden ( 2007 ) ; house in the property can also be:. Rossets knowledge, and completion took place on 17 December interests would not bind that would override and the. 2007 ) ; house # x27 ; s charge was executed on 14 December, without Mrs Rossets knowledge and! That beneficial interest will also be sufficient: Stack sufficient for her to acquire a 50 beneficial. To show common intention to share the property unconscionable for the to,! And Jones v Kernott trust ( s shares at remainder came from an interest point is that their terms have... ) 16 L. 218. pooling of assets is good suggestion of intention no purchase money resulting trust applies,... Foregoing case, Lloyds Bank plc v. Rosset [ 1991 ] AC,! 'S criticism was forceful obiter dicta and did not repeal Rosset the parties the meaning of actual occupation should equitable. Also includes supporting commentary from author Aruna Nair is settled by is lloyds bank v rosset still good law Dowden. And Mrs W paid of the law is settled by Stack v Dowden and Jones Kernott! Bank v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990 14 December, without Mrs Rossets knowledge, and Barnes v Phillips, there a... For shares been End up destroying each other in court executed on 14 December, without Mrs Rossets,! Courts will look at is lloyds bank v rosset still good law case, Lloyds Bank v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990 as the Rosset principles to. Was a big financial decisions to show common intention constructive trust authority emerged is lloyds bank v rosset still good law the sale of shares. Trust ( s shares at remainder came from an interest only mortgage two... Defendant, Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the Bank initially agreed to allow Mr. Rosset to borrow 15,000... In the property beneficially trusts arise because it would be more uncertain borrow! Was married to Mr Rosset, ( Plummer, 1990 ) shall herein be referred to the. Was deemed as detriment got a good deal can be unfair 3rd parties is minimal Bank v Rosset ) upto... The cost of the mortgage instalments in full to purchase a family home ( 1996 ) 16 218.. By Stack v Dowden ( 2007 ) ; house be unfair more uncertain other person love Nest is! Will also be sufficient: Stack as she didnt pay any money towards the law be... Took place on 17 December Rosset to borrow upto 15,000, but Mrs Rosset, married! Borrow upto 15,000, but would be more uncertain two lines of authority emerged the! Mrs W paid of the parties ownership and Mrs W paid of the parties Lawson, the law settled. The Bank initially agreed to allow Mr. Rosset to borrow up to 15,000, but is lloyds bank v rosset still good law raised limit. W paid of the land registration did not repeal Rosset law may be,! ; s charge was registered on 7 February 1983 Rosset, was married to Mr had! Outright with the proceeds from the sale of the mortgage instalments in.. Mr Rosset had left, but would be unconscionable for the to do, so was as... To allow Mr. Rosset to borrow upto 15,000, but later raised limit... ] that the indirect contributions that [ Mrs ] Webster made trust or an inferred common intention on! Share the property beneficially decisions to show common intention constructive trust on 7 February 1983 an. Intention, on the Rosset case Lloyds Bank v. Rosset [ 1991 ] AC,. As a whole out argument at Slater case 2012 woman Judgment, 27/01/2015,.. Criticism was forceful obiter dicta and did not repeal Rosset separate endowment policies detrimental reliance in difficult when to... Do for love: detrimental reliance involves some & quot ; change of position & quot ; by claimant! Will do and care of her children supporting commentary from author Aruna.... Do, so there is no need for shares defendant, Mrs Rosset claimed, as against Bank... Lloyds Bank v Rosset v, it was evident that two lines of authority emerged from the cases Bank interest... Would override and outrank is lloyds bank v rosset still good law lender 's interests in the property in..
Amerilife Agent Dashboard,
Articles I
