Trusts

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

I authorize the three executors with equal parts of my kingdom divided into three parts. The land or property can only be acquired when the executors agree to follow the conditions listed below:

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

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

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

"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?

In eliminating the IRS 's requisition for summary judgment in the case, the Tax Reckoning stated that it would no longer follow its opinion in McCord, in which it had held that "in advance of the death of a person, no recognized method exists for approximating the burden of the estate tax with a sufficient degree of certitude to be effective for Federal gift tax purposes" (McCord, 120 T.C. at 402). Therefore, under McCord, no discount would be allowed on a gift tax return for a potential estate tax liability.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

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

This is due to facts such as how the document was labeled “for the purpose of making the will”, which is open to interpretation, questioning if the document is her will, or that it is preparation for a final document. This is also supported as the first page of the handwritten document also contained personal information which is normally intended for a person writing a Will at a later date. There was also no evidence that the conversation between the decease and the appellant wasnt actually referring to this document, that was found in the storage box, due to that it doesn’t link with the applicants statement, that “everything” was left to him, as some items where not include, such as money in an account and shares. The third conclusion that Boddice came to was that even thought it was plausible that the decease wrote the will, it doesn’t conclude when the document was corrected, such as the tearing off the bottom page one, and the top of page two.There was also no evidence that the decease wouldn’t alter the will in futher, by either writing on the document, or removing sections of pages. The envelope which contained the document was also unsealed and that the formal parts where even completed by the deceases, so its not vague that the will was altered after placing it in the envelope, and due to it not being sealed it yet again can be open to further alterations. Further evidence to support the primary judges decision was that even though the deceased wrote her name on the document that it didn’t amount to a signature, as it didn’t match other signatures of hers on other documents, therefore suggesting that this document wasn’t final. The lack of evidence to support that this will

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

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

For a trust instrument to be valid and effective, it must be properly constituted. For a trust to be deemed as completely constituted, all of the relevant formalities must have been satisfied by the settlor, hence the legal title of the property must transfer to the trustees. The reason for a conveyance of property to the hands of trustee is explained in Milroy v Lord (1862) by Turner L.J. is that a valid and effectual voluntary settlement will exist, when the settlor have done everything which was necessary according to the nature of property comprised in the settlement, which is to transfer that particular property to the trustee. This requirement of constitution of trust is clear and straightforward, the

In Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts (1987) Megarry J held that in order to found a claim for knowing receipt, the defendant had to have actual knowledge that his receipt was in breach of trust or was ‘willfully blind’ shutting his eyes to the obvious; or willfully and

In one circumstance it neglects to only allow reliable evidence. In its oblique way it allows unreliable evidence. It could also be called circular because if it process to justify a secret trust. It works better with a fully secret trust rather than a half secret trust because it barely justifies the enforcement of a half secret trust. The Fraud theory is the first justification aspect of secret trusts. It was based on the resemblance with a secret trust and the statutory provisions contained in the Statute of Fraud 1677 preventing a legatee who accepted being a trustee, but then relied on the provision to take the full benefit. This would in case be seen as fraud. The predicament that occurs is the one of question why the courts should even allow the admittance of unreliable evidence. It is questionable whether the courts should in the case just assume that the legatee has the right to the full benefit they are supposed to hold trust in regards to a fully secret trust and in the case of a half secret trust the courts could assume that a testamentary trust fails to be upheld given the fact that in a half secret trust the object of the trust is kept a secret and therefor it fails. Hence it becomes an resulting trust in favour of the testators estate rather than who it was initially intended to be in favour for. Therefor in order to justify secret trust the fraud theory is used in certain