The essence of a trust lies in the principle that a settlor appoints a trustee, who then holds onto a property for a beneficiary. The trustee has power of the property but also duties to perform as a part of their role. The beneficiary is the ultimate owner and has all the associated rights to the property. The beneficiary principle states that in every non charitable trust there must be ascertainable beneficiaries. This means that there must be an actual human to which the court can decide in favour of. This rests on two propositions, firstly, a trust that cannot be enforced must fail. This view is widely accepted. The second view is that only beneficiaries can enforce trusts and this view is less accepted, as it is believed that beneficiaries …show more content…
In the facts of the case, a testator gave North Tawton Parish Council some money in order to ‘provide some useful memorial to myself.’ The trust was held to be invalid, as it was non-charitable, and there was no ascertainable beneficiary. This case followed on from the decision in Re Astor’s Settlement, where it was held that the need for a beneficiary is mandatory nature of the trust, thus if trustees are to be obligated, then there must be someone who can enforce their equitable right. In the case of Re Endacott, Re Astor’s Settlement was cited by Lord Evershed who stated that memorial not within his category of anomalous cases as to do so would ‘go far beyond any fair analogy to any of those decisions.’ However, Re Endacott also laid down some exceptions to the general rule that private purpose trusts are non-enforceable within the …show more content…
The rule is that one must be able to determine that before the end of the perpetuity period, that the trust will definitely come to an end. The perpetuity period defined as the age of the life in question, plus 21 years. However, the problem with private purpose trusts is that they often don’t have an ascertainable beneficiary, and so where this is the case, the court will define it as the twenty-one years. The perpetuity principle can be problematic in that where there is no named beneficiary, or where the trust is for the purpose of maintaining monuments as in the case of Re Hooper. However, in Re Hooper, the settlor had stated that the trustees were to carry out the purpose ‘as far as was legally possible’ and this was found to be ‘saving words,’ meaning that the trust was upheld and in line with the perpetuity principle. However, in the absence of such saving words, all trusts will fail. In Musset.v.Bingle there was no perpetuity period stated for the upkeep of the monument and it failed on that part, but was upheld on the actual erection of the monument, as it was assumed that the monument would be completed within 21
Therefore, an “innocent beneficiary” (Pojman, 1998, p. n.p.) is not completely innocent until they fulfill their moral obligation. This is because they are connected to past injustice and benefitted from someone’s harm. They only become completely innocent when they correct that wrong. Pojman, 1998, p.
The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was
The federal law that would be waived by the specific waiver on which the ACO (accountable care organization) and its participants intend to rely is “The Beneficiary Inducements CMP Law” and the waiver is the Waiver for Patient Incentives. This law prohibits offering or giving something of value to Medicare or Medicaid patients that would influence their choice of provider (from text book pg-184). The ACO’s formed in connection to the Shared Savings program, helps beneficiaries to obtain incentives offered to encourage preventive care and comply with the treatment regime. In the absence of the patient incentive waiver, the ACO is influencing the beneficiaries to accept the services from a specific provider thus, violating the Beneficiary Inducements CMP Law.
“Whenever a devise, conveyance, assignment, or other transfer of property, including a beneficial interest in a land trust, maintained or intended for maintenance as a homestead by both husband and wife together during coverture shall be made and the instrument of devise, conveyance, assignment, or transfer expressly declares that the devise or conveyance is made to tenants by the entirety, or if the beneficial interest in a land trust is to be held as tenants by
Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were
The trust was to terminate at the end of five years, at which time the accrued but unpaid income was to be paid to the taxpayer’s wife, and the principal returned to taxpayer. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Helvering v. Clifford that the income earned by the trust would be taxable to the grantor, even though the income was actually distributed to the beneficiary, because of the amount of control retained by the grantor.
"As stated by Lord Evershed in Re Endacott, 'no principle perhaps has greater sanction or authority behind it than a general proposition that a trust by English law, not being a charitable trust, in order to be effective must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries”. However, although the certainty of object is an important principle, it appears that the question in regards to the certainty of objects is one that asks whether there is a limit on the flexibility that exists in regards to discretionary trusts—which applies the ‘class test’ as opposed to the more definitive ‘list based test’ applied to fixed trusts—it may therefore be more appropriate to ask, what degree of uncertainty will be tolerated by the courts?
This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety
When creating an express trust knight and knight articulated that there must be certainty of subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of objects.
The famous US decision of Riggs v Palmer serves to illustrate a considerable strength in Dworkin’s argument concerning rules and principles. The New York court had to decide a case to determine whether a grandson who poisoned his grandfather to obtain his inheritance was in fact able to collect such an inheritance. At the time, there existed no statute or law that invalidated his claim as a beneficiary due to his involvement in the murder. Furthermore, the applicable legal rule seemed to be that legacies contained in legally valid testamentary dispositions are to be guaranteed by law in accordance with the wishes of the testator. According to Hart, the court should, in this situation, be decided upon pre-existing law. Yet despite this, the court majority found that the grandson could not inherit, instead appealing to moral reasoning by citing the principle that no one should be able to profit from ones crimes. A similar decision based on principle was handed down 70 years later in the case of Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors Inc. As a result of these cases, Dworkin is able
When looking at the dilemma that appears in the case of Mary Beth versus William and Elizabeth Stern there is a moral and legal issue that arises. The judge was very broad in his ruling and was not able to put himself into the shoes of Mary Beth. When it comes to pregnancy, there is a connection that is established during the 9 months, between mother and child that is unexplainable and a maternal relationship that should not be broken. The morally right and just ruling would have been to give the child to the intended parents but allow Mary Beth, as the surrogate, visitation rights. The contract between the Stern family and Mary Beth implied that Mary Beth was doing a duty or a job and getting paid the equivalent of her duties. It stated that Mary Beth would
The general rule on constitution of trusts is ‘equity will not assist a volunteer to perfect an imperfect trust’. It is apparent that subsequent case law has sought to depart from such principle by introducing various exceptions which allow incomplete gifts to be perfected. Nevertheless, there has been many criticism and debate in regards to this area of the law since it is felt on the one hand, that the scope is for exceptions is being widened too far, whilst it is argued on the other that it will be unconscionable to the parties for the gift not to be perfected. Nonetheless, the exceptions is inevitable will continue to advance and thus create a topic for criticisms and debate.
In his article ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ Hayton suggested that the distinction between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has, over time, come to be but illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of the development of the law has been to embrace the principle of preventing and remedying unconscionable conduct regardless of whether the claim brought before them was originally brought under the concept of a constructive trust or proprietary
It is to be noted that in Re Montagu the recipient was a volunteer , that is, who gave no consideration for the transfer of title so he could not count as equity’s darling. In Akindele by contrast the defendant had given consideration under a valid contract for the assets he received. Should it be ‘unconscionable’ for a volunteer to retain the benefit of his receipt being one who paid nothing for what he received in breach of trust where as under a valid contract a defence of bona fide purchaser will always apply to commercial dealings.
However, there may also be the sub issue of whether Tom has the competence to make the appointment of a new trustee. Section 10 (1) of the Trustee Act states that where a trustee, either original or substituted, and whether appointed by a Court or otherwise, is dead, or remains out of this Island for more than twelve months, or