Implicating a cross-section of property and familial policies, the question of when and whether a spouse acquires a resulting trust interest in realty jointly occupied with another spouse is one of the emotive questions of our times. This article examines the merits of a conventionalistic conception of the resulting trust against competing dogmatic and intentionalistic conceptions, and concludes that it furnishes a better resolution of the impinging policies. As the Court of Appeal decision in Lau Siew Kim is a foremost example of the conventionalistic analysis, attention is focused on various aspects of the decision with a view to defending it against the mixed reception it has received hitherto