The author of Trust Matters, Megan Tschannen-Moran is a professor at The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. She teaches courses in educational leadership and conducts research about relationships in school settings, specifically related to trust and efficacy. http://wmpeople.wmedu/site/page/mxtsch
"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?
Paul Dutton has asked us to alter his estate plan, which previous included an inter vivos trust created in 2013 and a previously executed Will leaving all of his property to his spouse, Erika Dutton. He has asked that we update his current Will to create a two trust plan, consisting of a marital trust and family trust. I have conformed the terms of his new will to this request but now would like to direct your attention to some significant flaws in the language of the original will, which have not been changed, and suggest some solutions to these flaws.
Advisor met with the client and brothers Elbert Parker (POA) and John Parker. Overall, from the meeting advisor saw several red flags he deemed as suspicious, he felt that Elbert Parker (POA) and John Parker, her brothers are trying to take advantage of Kate when she passes away by changing the beneficiary to themselves. With changing the beneficiary to Elbert & John they would each receive 50% of her 6915016 account. He felt John was nervous in talking to the advisor while Elbert was confident and directed Kate several times on how to fill out the change of beneficiary forms.
With the revocable living trust, Claire will be able to have her assets put in the trust, and in the future, if she becomes incapacitated, then her trustee can manage things for her, instead of her beneficiaries, or a guardian of the court. A revocable living trust will also allow upon death, privacy of Claire, her beneficiaries and her property. If the revocable trust is designed to become irrevocable upon death it will benefit the beneficiaries in ways that they can design and put several irrevocable trusts in place to protect them and other beneficiaries (Garber, 2017). Claire’s son John, could possibly contest this Living Trust since he is a beneficiary, however if the planner accurately followed State laws, physician assessment guidelines, and uses careful design, chances that John could successfully contest would be slim. John could also contest the Will or the Living Trust if he feels that her capacity level was not accurately assessed during the time of designing and signing the legal documents, hence the reason for witness testimonies along with their signatures to safeguard from such challenge (Garber,
If you have questions, please feel free to give me a call. But, please keep in mind that we only represent Rosann Drielsma as trustee of both the Bypass Trust and the Survivor’s Trust. We don’t represent either you or your sister as contingent beneficiaries of the Bypass Trust.
A "TRUST" is nothing more than a "CONTRACT" between the person who wishes to protect his assets (the Grantor) the person who will manage the assets (the Trustee) for the benefit of all Beneficiaries which may include the Grantor, his spouse, children and grandchildren.
The Model of Trust Enhancement was established to enhance and maintain the public’s trust in the accounting profession. Over the last two decades, the ethics of the accounting profession has been questioned and public trust destabilized, in particular for auditors, due to the Enron debacle. The fact that an auditing firm would assist their clients with publishing an inadequate set of financial statements shows their willingness to violate laws and regulations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). According to the textbook, “Because trust is essential, even the appearance of an accountant’s honesty and integrity is important. The auditor, therefore, must not only be trustworthy, but he or she must also appear trustworthy” (Duska, Duska & Ragatz, 2011, p. 116). The majority of statements filed inadequately have a substantial impact on the credibility of the accounting profession as a whole. Sullivan (n.d.10) states that a CPA must possess a high level of trust, by applying professional judgment and enhancing the three trustworthy characteristics (ability, benevolence, and integrity) when resolving accounting ethics dilemmas (slide 3).
Willfully and recklessly failing to make such inquiries as an honest and responsible man would make.
 Mr Orderly, deceased, a retired police officer left a will bequeathing the residue of his estate to be divided on trust in three parts namely: Clause A, B, and C. The text of the trust is contained in the joint reasons. It purposed to discourage, document and campaign
If you have decided to set up a charitable trust, you may believe that taking the proper steps now will ensure that your wishes will be honored after your death, regardless of circumstances. However, what happens to your trust if the purpose you wanted it to fulfill is no longer possible? In this type of case, the court may invoke the cy pres doctrine, which would allow the funds to be used in a manner that matches your original intentions as closely as possible.
Certainty of subject matter is where there must be an identification of the trust property and certainty as to whom is which part of the trust property to be held. In relation to uncertainty of beneficial interests, the trust will fail where the method of distribution is stipulated by the sethlow but cannot take effect (Boyce v Boyce). However the trust will not fail where the method of distribution is not stipulated by the sethlow leaving the court to intervene (re napton). If there is an effect of lack of certainty in
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
A harsh decision would been seen in the case of Re Fry (1946), as the donor in this case had completed necessary forms and returned them. He also applied for the necessary consent which required by the Defence Regulation (Amendments No.2) SI 1939/1620, but the consent was not given before his untimely demise. Romer J. did not upheld the trust because the donor has not done everything that is necessary for the transfer of the title. As Romer J. stated that if the donor had been asked for further details, he is not compelled to proceed with the transfer, he have the choice to refuse as he obtain more details about the transfer of share.The law had been very clear with regards to imperfect gifts or incompletely constituted trust, as some judges even decided harshly to comply with the maxim and general rule. However there are judges that came out with different rule to curb such harsh decision and strict principle, this is known as ‘the every effort rule’. The ‘every effort rule’ which was established in the case of Re Rose  explained by Rimer L.J in Zeital v Kaye  that “once a donor has done all in his own power to transfer the shares, he will be regarded as holding the legal title to them upon trust for the donee, who will thereupon become their beneficial owner”. This rule will not render the gift or trust failed
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.