Re Astor's Settlement Case Summary

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