Certainty of Objects and Beneficiary Principle.
Certainty of Objects and Beneficiary Principle. The point with the Certainty of Objects is that a trust is only made legal and enforceable if the beneficiaries are clear and obvious. Beneficiaries are recognised as the equitable owners of a trust property, this is since about 1805, prior to this trust property belonged to the trust and the beneficiary was not recognised as the owner. The case of Morice v Bishop of Durham is central to the development of trust law, it hinged on the fact that the beneficiaries of the trust could not be ascertained, the trust was to be a charitable one and the beneficiaries were to be 'charitable or benevolent'. This was held to be too vague and on appeal in 1805 it was decided that not every benevolent purpose could be considered a charity and therefore there was no ascertainable beneficiary. Following this decision limits were put on what could be done with a trust, and the identification of all beneficiaries became crucial to the enforcement of the trust. The courts were quite restrained in their ability to administer a trust, if they did act then their decisions had to be justiciable. However for this to happen it was necessary for the Settlor to be very clear on what criteria should be used if it became necessary for the court to execute the trust. Therefore from this rationale it is clear that a court cannot be expected to act where a
EQUITY AND TRUST
Re: Madge Moneybags OPINION I am asked to advise Madge's executors as to the validity of the dispositions and bequests made by Madge. My instructing solicitor, Ms R Smith, has set out the facts sufficiently and I shall refer to these instructions whenever necessary in my opinion. (1) The Validity of Trust of the Madge Mansions in favour of Gwynneth A valid express trust is one which is intentionally created by a settlor when he effectively declares a trust. It seems that Madge intended to create a trust by transferring Madge Mansions to Brad. Therefore, a trust will arise only if a valid declaration of a trust is made and there was an effective transfer of the property to Brad (see, Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264). For an effective transfer of land or the interest in land, a deed is required by s.52 of the Law of Property Act 925 as otherwise it will be void and my instructing solicitor has transferred the legal title of the property to Brad to this effect. As far as the declaration is concerned, s.53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a declaration of trust in relation any land must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust. The writing is only required as evidence of the declaration (see, Foster v Hale (1798) 3 Ves 696). Thus, the writing of the actual declaration is not necessary as long as
Equity Coursework Introduction The two articles by Jonathon Garton and Margaret Halliwell both address the decision in Re Rose1 on the issue of perfecting imperfect gifts. Prior to Re Rose2, Milroy v Lord3 was the main case on this issue, where Turner L.J. stated, "...the court will not hold the intended transfer to operate as a declaration of trust, for then every imperfect instrument would be effectual by being converted into a perfect trust."4 These two articles, however, have different view points on this issue and present arguments as to whether the decision in this case is correct or not; there has also been some suggestion that it has opened the floodgates for future cases to argue that the courts should perfect the passing of imperfect gifts. There are many legal experts who agree with one article over the other; however, there are many other experts that agree with certain issues raised in both the articles. I will look at both articles, critically analysing both of them, and suggest which article takes preference. Starting Point - Milroy v Lord Milroy v Lord is the starting point for which to understand the main aspects of both these articles. In this case, the settlor delivered up the executed transfer form and share certificates but the defendant's name was never entered on the bank's register of members and so legal title had not been transferred to the
The central issue is the "complete constitution of voluntary trusts".
Table of Contents: Iconia: 1 Has Rowena Acquired Legal Title? 1 Has Rowena Acquired Equitable Title? 1 Instrument of Transfer: 2 Certificate of Title: 3 Less Likely Conclusion: 4 Most Likely Conclusion: 4 Postage Stamp: 5 Interest Free Loan: 7 Shares in Company C: 8 Diamond: 10 Painting: 11 Credit Balance: 12 Antique Vase: 14 The central issue is the "complete constitution of voluntary trusts"1. We begin with the declaration by Turner LJ in Milroy v Lord2 that "there is no equity to perfect an imperfect gift"3. This statement has been confirmed in Olsson v Dyson4. Iconia: Has Rowena Acquired Legal Title? Rowena has not acquired legal title to Iconia since she is not the registered owner of the property pursuant to sections 60(1) and 181 of the Land Title Act5(LTA). Therefore it must be determined if she has acquired equitable title to enable her to call for legal title. Has Rowena Acquired Equitable Title? High Court authority in Corin v Patton6 dictates that equity will recognize a gift of Torrens Title land if the intending donor (Jeremy) has done everything which is necessary for them to have done to effectuate a transfer, in equity, of their interest in the land7. Mason CJ8, McHugh J9 and Deane J10 held that ownership of the memorandum of transfer (Instrument of transfer(IT) in Queensland by virtue of s60 (1) LTA) needs to be given to the intended
Equity and Trusts - Scenario based. There are many types of trusts; this assignment is about express trusts. Lord Langdale formulated the tests for three certainties where to have a valid trust there must be the certainty of intention, subject matt
There are many types of trusts1; this assignment is about express trusts2. Lord Langdale formulated the tests for three certainties where to have a valid trust there must be the certainty of intention, subject matter and objects. It also carries out that formalities may have to be applied and it must also be constituted properly.3 Trust can be formed only on real property that can be found,4 they are also irrevocable.5 Adnan has the capacity to execute a trust as he is over eighteen and sane. Intentions are the primary focus when analysing whether a trust has been created, it can be difficult to distinguish intentions. The courts look for words of compulsion.6 In Wright,7 Lord Atkyns stated 'the words must be imperative.' Adnan's overall intention is crucial rather than the certain words he uses.8 Due to empathy, his intention is genuine, he uses the words 'You have the farm' this satisfies the criteria. At first it seems like a gift9 but because there is a 'but' his words are not a mere expression,10 it is a fixed trust. This distinction can be understood through the cases of Re Snowden and Gold V Hill. In Palmer,11 'the bulk of my estate' was not enough to amount to certainty of subject matter. Sir Arthur Hobhouse in Missorie Bank v Raynor 1882 said; 'Uncertainty in the subject matter of the gift throws doubt on the intention of the testator'. The potential subject matter
Why are there any special formalities for the creation of trusts and dispositions of interests thereunder? Is the present position satisfactory?
Why are there any special formalities for the creation of trusts and dispositions of interests thereunder? Is the present position satisfactory? While declarations of trust in personalty can be made orally, under the present law creation of trust of land and those under a will as well as any dispositions of equitable interest have to be either in writing or evidenced in writing ( s.53 Law of Property Act 1925 and s.9 Wills Act 1837). The general aim behind the formality requirements, like in contracts, is to serve as a caution to those declaring a trust or disposing of an interest under one. The need for writing also serves an important evidentiary purpose. Firstly it makes fraud more difficult and secondly it helps avoid administrative problems by recording the duties of trustees so as to enable them to exercise them properly and in compliance with the trust. More specific aims behind the formalities in declaration of trust for land is the uniqueness of land and the overwhelming need for certainty in realty. As far as dispositions of equitable interest are concerned, evidence is needed since it often is the only indicator of where a particular right resides at any given time. As wills take effect upon the death of a testator/trix it essential that their wishes are know with precision. Hence writing enables the executor of the will to administer it according to the deceased's
In his will, Colin leaves 100,000 to the Hillingbridge Tennis Club, an unincorporated association, to enable it to build an extension to its existing pavilion. The money is paid to Morris, the treasurer of the club, who puts it into a specially opened
A purpose trust involves trustees, as legal owners of assets being under an equitable obligation to use them specifically for a purpose, rather than for beneficiaries as equitable owners. However if the purpose is not a charitable one, a settlor would need to overcome a number of obstacles before the trust will be a valid purpose trust. The requirements of certainty or intentions and certainty of subject matter are the same for all trusts. The certainty of objects involves the definition of the relevant purpose, which must be certain enough for the courts to be able to control. 1 The beneficiary principle will be fulfilled if there is a human beneficiary, who can both apply to the court for equity against the legal owner and benefit from enforcing the trust.2 'Trusts of imperfect obligation' provide an exception to the beneficiary rule. These are only likely to apply in cases of trust which are established by will. In REASTOR a number of cases were distinguished as being exceptional- Where the trust is for an animal, it must be clearly identifiable and the same rule also applies to monuments.3 Such trusts may also be enforced by a residuary lettagee4. So a specific gift may be subject to negative enforcement in that a residuary beneficiary can claim on resulting trust if the purpose is not carried out. It was presumed because they would be entitled to the surplus, they
Certainties of trust P/Q
In knight v knight, Lord Langdale MR1 clarified that a trust will be invalid unless the 'three certainties are shown'. These are designed to protect trustees, as otherwise trustees could easily breach the trust and become liable for the loss2. Furthermore the court views certainty as essential so if necessary, it can control the trust3. Therefore, in each area all three certainties must be satisfied, however it must be noted the tests may vary to the type of trust or power created. A) A discretionary trust has been created, this compels trustees to act ('shall' indicates this); however it allows trustees to exercise discretion to whom the money is given to (anyone who is an avid science fiction fan). This allows the trustees to choose who benefits within this category4. The certainty of intention is clear and has been satisfied. Rose (the settlor) has left £400,000 to Mickey and Rickey (her trustees) to benefit avid science fiction fans (the beneficiaries). The certainty of the subject matter is satisfied, 400,000 is subject to the trust. What is controversial is the certainty of the objects (beneficiaries). What is controversial is the certainty of the objects (beneficiaries). This will render a trust void; the test for certainty of objects within discretionary trusts was established in Mcphail v Doulton5. It must be said with certainty that 'any given postulant'
The quote posed is one which concerns the necessary requirements of an express trust, namely that there has to be certainty of intention, subject matter and object. In addition the necessary formalities must be complied with. This paper will illustrate the certainties along with the requisite formalities but importantly will be focused on the analysis of certainty of subject matter principle in drawing to a conclusion as to whether courts have been eager and willing to discount the requirements to meet just results. To begin with; Certainty of Intention, where there is a dispute as to the validity of a trust and subjectively speaking whether there is sufficient intention on the settlor's part, in other words did he genuinely intend to construct such a trust. The person wishing to rely on the existence of the trust must produce evidence to demonstrate that the settler intended the creation of the trust. Evidence can be in the form of oral, written or conduct of the parties is interpreted by the parties to determine whether a trust is in existence. The equitable maxim 'Equity looks at the intent rather than the form' thus in this context, a trust may be constructed even if the word trust was not used.1 One can note at the outset that a trial judge in such disputes hold wide discretion and it is difficult and risky to read deep into the case law in this area. The circumstances
'Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No.2)  Ch. 9'
Case note: 'Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No.2)  Ch. 9' The Court: > 'The Court of Appeal' The Judges: > Sachs, Megaw and Stamp LJJ What are the relevant facts? > 1941 - Bertram Baden (Settlor), Chairman and Managing Director of Matthew Hall & Co Ltd, established trust fund of 5,000 shares in the company for officers and employees of the company. > Clause 9(a) of the deed directed his trustees to: > "Apply the net income of the fund in making at their absolute discretion grants to or for the benefit of any of the officers and employees or ex-officers or ex-employees of the company or to any relatives or dependants of any such persons in such amounts at such times and on such conditions (if any) as they think fit..." > 1943 - Settlor transferred a further 5,000 shares to the trustees and other shares were added later. > 1960 - Settlor dies. > 1962 - Executors told that trusts were void for uncertainty and claimed payment of the fund to his estate. > 1963 - The trustees (Edwin Baden, Peter Duke Doulton, Sidney Kindler and Alexander Laing Pearson, as plaintiff's, tried to discover whether the trust was valid or void for uncertainty. > The defendants to the summons (the Executors) were Arthur Frederick Smith, Robert Thomas Mitchell McPhail, Mrs Enid May Baden, Raymond Rostron Baden and Joseph Frederick Norris. > Goff J held: Provisions of clause 9(a) constituted a