Re Astor's Settlement Case Summary

The contention arose with Hunter v Moss which did not follow the orthodox approach where Hunter was entitled 50 out of moss’s 1000 shares. Under the Goldcorp rule there would be no trust because the property was not separated however Dillon J said there was a valid trust. The rationale for this controversial decision was that it would have made no difference which 50 shares would have been given because they were all identical. So here there was no need to segregate the property if it was intangible.

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

“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

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 difference between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has been described as ‘illusory’ (Hayton). Do you agree with this statement? Consider how the case law has developed and give reasons for your answer.

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.

The personal liability of third parties for having received or dealt with trust rights or their traceable substitutes which they received in breach of trust is known as recipient liability. Knowing receipt arises where the recipient has some degree of knowledge that the property was received in breach of the trust or following receipt acquired some degree of knowledge that the rights were trust rights and dealth with them as his/her own instead of returning them to the trust.

In the case of Gagnon v. Coombs, Joan Coombs did not have the right to convey the Shelburne farm to a trust that Joan herself established. Joan was the agent and Francis Gagnon was the principal in this case. At the time when Joan transferred the property

1. 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.

Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) Forms There is a document for diagnostic laboratory testing that the centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) policies with the respect to the circumstances under which laboratory tests are considered reasonable and necessary, and not screening for Medicare purposes is called National Coverage Determinations (NCDs). A Medicare assignment was accepted by Regional Pathology Services and is not allowed to bill Medicare beneficiary for the NCD tests listed below unless the ABN is executed by the provider that tells the beneficiary in advance of the service that they will be responsible for the payment of the test if the Medicare should deny payment.

Prior cases such as Trust of Bingham v. Commissioner, Lykes v. Commissioner, Kornhauser v. United States, Deputy v. du Pont were given as examples. The principle the Court derived from these cases is that the characterization, as “business” or “personal” of the litigation costs of resisting a claim depend on whether or not the claim arises in connection with the taxpayer’s profit-seeking activities. It does not depend on the consequences that might result to a taxpayer’s income-producing property from a failure to defeat the claim. That leads to the question: did the wife’s claims respecting Gilmore’s stockholdings arise in connection with his profit-seeking activities?

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.

Issuing an advanced beneficiary notice is a very important aspect of care. This document must be given to the beneficiary before any services are provided to let them know of the possible fee covered or not covered by Medicaid. In this situation, I would first review the cases to determine if a ABN needed to be issued in the first place. Once, I have determined which case is a liability I will then proceed to the CFO. There I will talk to the officer about the possible fines we will have to pay and what our next steps are when it comes to the patients’ healthcare needs. Lastly, I would go to the Chief of the Medical staff where we will discuss the situation and prepare for the training sessions on ABN and understanding when it must be issues

He pointed out that a trust should not be dependent on this distinction and that a trustee should look for beneficiaries in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty under the trust. In his opinion, Lord Wilberforce, noted that a discretionary trust is a trust and the trustee must identify beneficiaries. He continued that where a trust was made for the benefit of a group, the complete list test will not be appropriate in establishing certainty of objects. The list of beneficiaries in a discretionary trust cannot be completed and the trustee is, therefore, not required to provide equal benefits for all beneficiaries. In his view, the most appropriate test would be to inquire whether an individual is or is not a member of a beneficial

Discuss this conclusion of the Supreme Court and decide whether you agree with it. 2000 words 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