Term
| What does constituting the trust mean? |
|
Definition
CONSTITUTING = TRANSFERRING LEGAL TITLE TO THE TRUSTEES (OR IF A GIFT = TRANSFERRING LEGAL TITLE TO THE DONEE)
Constituting the trust = vesting the trust property in the trustees (only applicable where trust is being created through other trustees) |
|
|
Term
| What does it mean where a trust is 'completely constituted'? |
|
Definition
It means that the trust property is vested in the trustees. It is then binding on the settlor, who cannot change his mind and revoke the trust. The beneficiaries have enforceable rights, even though they may have given no consideration for the thrust
(NOTE - occasionally, but very rarely, a trust can specifically authorise revocation after constitution) |
|
|
Term
| What happens if trust property is not properly vested in the trustees? |
|
Definition
| The trust is said to be incompletely constituted. |
|
|
Term
| What happens if a trust is incompletely constituted & no consideration has been given? |
|
Definition
| If no consideration has been given for the incompletely constituted trust, the trust is void (subject to certain exceptions) - Equity will not compel the settlor to make the trust completely constituted (ie. will not perfect an imperfect gift). The equitable maxim 'Equity will not assist a volunteer' will generally be applied. |
|
|
Term
| What happens if a trust is incompletely constituted, BUT, consideration has been given? |
|
Definition
| The incompletely constituted trust may be specificall enforced - 'Equity regards as done that which ought to be done'. |
|
|
Term
| What are the requirements for validly disposing of your property after you die? (applicable to gifts, trusts, etc..) |
|
Definition
You must comply with s9 Wills Act 1837
1) In writing
2) Signed by testator
3) Two witnesses |
|
|
Term
| If you are creating a trust in your will, how is the trust constituted? |
|
Definition
| The trust is constituted by the will. As long as s9 Will Act 1837 is complied with, no other 'constitution' requirements for disposal of property on death... (legal title is transferred by the will) |
|
|
Term
| For what type of dispositions do the rules on constitution become tricky? |
|
Definition
| Lifetime dispositions - inter vivos |
|
|
Term
| Milroy v Lord (on the different ways a legal owner can dispose himself of his property) |
|
Definition
1) Outright gift (legal and beneficial title travel to the donee)(must comply with any legal transfer requirements + must be intention)
2) Transfer on trust (legal title to trustee, beneficial title to beneficiary) (must comply with any legal title requirements + if = land, must = s53(1)(b) + 3certainties and any other formalities)
3) Self-declaration of trust (legal title stays with settlor, beneficial title to beneficiary)(must have 3 certainities & comply with any formalities e.g. land = s53(1)(b). |
|
|
Term
| I am the outright owner of a piece of land, and I want to get some trustees (X) to hold it on trust for my daughter (Y)... |
|
Definition
1) Transfer legal title to X (s52(1) LPA)
2) Make valid declaration of trust for Y (s53(1)(b) = new trust of land)`
3) 3 certainties |
|
|
Term
| I hold the beneficial interest to a piece of land. My trustee is X and I want X to transfer my interest to Y. |
|
Definition
1) Grey v IRC - this = a disposition, therefore, must comply with s53(1)(c)
2) As X already holds the legal interest = no legal requirements |
|
|
Term
| If you are the outright owner of some property, and you want to self-declare yourself as trustee for Y, what 'constitutions' measures must you take? |
|
Definition
NONE - as the legal title is already vested in you, you do not have to do anything about transferring legal title.
HOWEVER, note, you still need to comply with the 3 certainties + any formalities (if = new trust of land, must comply with s53(1)(b) LPA) |
|
|
Term
| How do you transfer legal title? (applicable in cases concerning gifts, or creation of trusts where settlor is not trustee) |
|
Definition
It depends on what the property...
Land
Shares in a UK incorporated company
Chattels
Bills of exchange
Money
Choses in action |
|
|
Term
| How can the legal title to chattels be transferred? (chattels = items of personal property e.g. paintings, jewellery) |
|
Definition
1) a deed, or,
2) Actual delivery (Re Cole), coupled with intention (Glaister-Carlaisle) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
NOT ENOUGH TO JUST SHOW INTENTION, YOU MUST ALSO DELIVER IT TO THE PERSON (if it is impractical, you must do it by deed)
Husband showed a table to wife and said 'it's all yours darling'
HELD - not enough to show intention, also had to deliver the property. |
|
|
Term
| Glaister-Carlisle v Glaister-Carlisle [1968] |
|
Definition
AN INTENTION TO TRANSFER LEGAL TITLE MUST BE CLEAR AND UNOQUIVICAL
Husband and wife were having an argument
Husband threw his poodle at his wife and said 'here, you keep the bitch'
HELD - the Husband had not manifested a clear and unoquivical intention to transfer title of the poodle to the wife - Husbands actions had been in the heat of the moment anger |
|
|
Term
| How must legal title to shares be transferred? |
|
Definition
1) Stock Transfer Act 1963, sets out requirements
2) Transferor (settlor) must sign a STOCK TRANSFER FORM in favour of the transferee (trustee/donee)
3) Transferor must then sent STF along with share certificate to the company's registrar (for registration)
4) Title only passes on registration of the transferee as the new shareholder
(NOTE - in a PLC, directors cannot refuse new shareholder. But, in a private limited company, they may be able to, as in Re Rose) |
|
|
Term
| W.r.t transferring legal title of shares, at what point does the donee/trustee receive legal title? |
|
Definition
| At the point where the company's registrar receives the share certificate & stock transfer form from the transferor & registers the thransferee (donor/trustee) as the new shareholder. |
|
|
Term
| How must legal title to land be transferred? |
|
Definition
s52 LPA - by deed (that's all you need to write in exam, don't have to go in to detail about how the deed works)
NOTE - if creating a new trust of land, you also need to abide by s53(1)(b) |
|
|
Term
| W.r.t transferring legal title to a cheque (bill of exchange), what must be done? |
|
Definition
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT [1882]
Cheques made in favour of the transferor (settlor/donor) can be transferred to a 3rd party (trustee/donee) by the transferor endorsing the cheque. |
|
|
Term
| What does it mean to 'endorse a cheque'? |
|
Definition
| Method used for transferring legal title to the cheque to someone else... sign name on back of cheque. |
|
|
Term
| W.r.t transferring the legal title to money, how is this done? |
|
Definition
TRANSFERRED BY DELIVERY
Merely writing a cheque in someone's favour & handind it to the payee (person receiving the money) DOES NOT transfer the money to the payee until the cheque is cleared.
If the payer dies before the cheque is cleared, and the payee has given no consideration for the cheque, the cheque cannot be enforced. |
|
|
Term
| W.r.t transferring legal title to 'choses in action', what must be done? |
|
Definition
| Debts and other choses in action (including rights under a bank account) are transferred by writing, complying with s136 LPA 1925 - notice must be given to the debtor/other party |
|
|
Term
| To what does s136 LPA apply? |
|
Definition
To transferring legal title to choses in action.
1) Assignor must themselves write to the debtor & let them know that the legal title is being transferred.
2) Legal title passes on the date the debtor receives the notice |
|
|
Term
| What are choses in action? |
|
Definition
It is a right to sue due to some intangible personal personal property right.
Covers... debts, rights under a bank account, right to sue for breach of contract, right to claim damages... etc... |
|
|
Term
| What is the general rule w.r.t situations where legal title is not correctly transferred? |
|
Definition
Milroy v Lord [1862]
Equity will not rescue the failed trust or gift - equity will not perfect an imperfect gift (or trust), equity will not assist a volunteer (e.g. no consideration), equity will not treat an imperfect gift as a self-declaration of trust (e.g. to overcome need for consitution) |
|
|
Term
| What is the leading case which shows the general rule that equity will not perfect an imperfect trust/gift? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
EQUITY WILL NOT PERFECT AN IMPERFECT TURST
FAILED CONSTITUTION = NO TRUST
Mr Medley executed a deed purporting to transfer shares in a certain bank into the D's title (for D to hold on trust for the C)
However, no transfer of the deeds into the D's name was ever made by the bank
When medley died, it was held that there was no valid trust in the shares (therefore, shares go to Medley's estate)
HELD - 'the settlor must have constituted the trust, there is no equity to perfect an imperfect gift.
HIGHLIGHTS THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF CORRECTLY TRANSFERRING LEGAL TITLE. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT IF LEGAL TITLE IS NOT CORRECTLY TRANSFERRED, EQUITY WILL NOT RESCUE THE FAILED TRUST |
|
|
Term
| On the facts of Milroy v Lord, it concerned a failed trust. Which case shows that the rule in Milroy v Lord is also applicable to failed gifts? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE RULE IN MILROY V LORD = APPLICABLE TO GIFTS... EQUITY WILL NOT RESCUE A FAILED GIFT OR TRUST
THIS CASE CONCERNED A GIFT, AND ALSO IMPORTS THE RULE THAT EQUITY WILL NOT TREAT A FAILED GIFT AS A SELF-DECLARATION OF TRUST
Mr Roberts had a cheque payable to him for £900
Mr Roberts got home & it was his child's birthday, but he had forgotten to buy his child a gift
therefore, when asked if he had brought a gift, he handed the £900 cheque to the baby and said 'I give this to baby'
A few days later, Mr Roberts died
(NOTE - cheque constitution, MUST endorse it to new owner)
C tried t argue that Mr Roberts actions = self-declaration of trust
HELD - equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
Equity will not treat an imperfect gift as a self-declaration of trust. |
|
|
Term
Equity will not treat a failed gift as a self declaration of trust... discuss...
(NOTE - a gift will only fail if constitution fails) |
|
Definition
Someone may try to argue that a failed gift is a self-declaration of a trust. This is because, a self-declaration of a trust requires no constitution, as the settlor would also be the trustee. Also, if the property concerned was not land, there would be no other formalities to follow (apart from 3 certainties etc..)
Therefore, someone may try to argue that a failed gift was actually a self-declaration of trust... HOWEVER, THE COURTS WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!! |
|
|
Term
| Which two cases can be used to show that equity will not treat a failed gift as a self-declaration of a trust? |
|
Definition
Jones v Lock [1865]
Richards v Delbridge [1874] |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that equity will not perfect an imperfect trust? (where there is incorrect constitution) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are the exceptions to the rule in Milroy v Lord? (rele = equity will not perfect an imperfect trust/gift (which has failed on constitution) |
|
Definition
1) Point of no return - if the settlor hasn't quite done enough, but has gone past the point of no return
2)Pennignton v Waine exception - Where there has been reliance on the ineffective transfer
3) Proprietary estoppel (dffnt to contract)
4) Death bed gift
5) Alternative route (LT gets into the right person's hands, but via a crazy route)
6) One's enough |
|
|
Term
| One of the exceptions to the MilroyvLord rule is 'point of no return'... discuss... |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What is the leading case on 'point of no return'? |
|
Definition
Re Rose [1952] (applies to shares)
Mascall v Mascall [1985] (applies to land + loosens Rose requirements) |
|
|
Term
| What is the test laid out in Re Rose (for 'point of no return') |
|
Definition
There are three conditions which have to be met in order for the Re Rose exception to be invoked...
1) Use the correct method to make the transfer (e.g. so if it had been finished off, it would have been done correctly)
2) Does all he can to make the transfer happen
3) Documents must end up with the registrar of the company (for shares) (Mascall extends this to cover land... but Mascall also changes this element of the test) |
|
|
Term
| The second of the Re Rose conditions is that the donee must have done all that he could do. According to Re Rose, what does this require? |
|
Definition
| Completed documents must be given/posted to the person capable of effecting transfer of the legal title e.g. company's registrar |
|
|
Term
| The test for 'point of no return' as laid out in Re Rose, was adjusted slightly by what case, and in what way? |
|
Definition
Mascall v Mascall... this case made it applicable to land. Also, new test =
1) Transferor uses the correct method
2) Transferor need not have done all that he could have done, BUT
3) The the transfer must be irrevocable by the transferor (MATTER MUST BE OUT OF THE TRANSFEROR'S HANDS)
(e.g. in this case, transferor hadn't posted the completed documentation to the land registrar, BUT, he had given all the completed documents to the donee, and the donee was not compelled in any way to return the documents, therefore = out of his hands) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
MADE POINT OF NO RETURN PRINCIPLE APPLY TO LAND
ADJUSTED RE ROSE TEST...
1) Transferor must use the correct method
2) Transferor need not do evertyhing within his power to effect the transfer
3) BUT, transfer must be irrevocable by transferor (MATTER MUST BE OUT OF THE TRANSFEROR'S HANDS) |
|
|
Term
| To what types of property does the 'point of no return' exception apply to? |
|
Definition
1) Shares - Re Rose
2) Land - Mascall v Mascall [1985] |
|
|
Term
| Soooo, after Mascall v Mascall [1985], what must the transferor have done in order to have reached the point of no return? |
|
Definition
1) Used the correct method for transferring the type of property
2) Doesn't have to have done EVERYTHING within their power, BUT,
3) Transfer must no longer be revocable by the transferor (therefore, maybe transferor has done everything (e.g. by posting documents to registrar), or maybe, transferor hasn't done everything (e.g. by posting/giving completed documents to donee, rather than to registrar), but once the donee has got the documents, the matter is out of the transferor's hands. (NOTE... IF TRANSFEROR GIVES DOCUMENTS TO HIS AGENT, THIS WILL NOT BE OUT OF THE TRANSFEROR'S HANDS!!! AS TRANSFEROR CAN ASK HIS AGENT TO GIVE THE SHIZZLE BACK TO HIM) |
|
|
Term
| what did the lecturer say, that is of VITAL importance to the discussion of whether the matter is 'out of the transferor's hands' |
|
Definition
| OFTEN IN EXAMS YOU WILL BE GIVEN A SCENARIO WHERE THE TRANSFEROR PLACES THE DOCUMENTS INTO AN AGENT OF HIS (E.G. A SOLICITOR, OR AN ESTATE AGENT)... AT THIS POINT, THE MATTER IS NOT OUT OF THE TRANSFEROR'S HANDS!!! THIS IS BECAUSE, AT THIS POINT THE TRANSFEROR COULD SIMPLY PHONE UP HIS AGENT AND ASK THEM NOT TO SEND THE DOCUMENTS.... THE MATTER MUST TRULY BE OUT OF THE TRANSFEROR'S HANDS... EITHER IN THE HANDS OF THE REGISTRAR, AN INDEPENDENT 3RD PARTY, OR THE DONEE!!! |
|
|
Term
| Zeital v Kaye [2010] - on 'done all that he could do' |
|
Definition
IN ORDER FOR THE RE ROSE & MASCALL EXCEPTION TO APPLY, THE TRANSFEROR MUST HAVE DONE ALL THAT HE COULD HAVE DONE / THE MATTER MUST BE OUT OF HIS HANDS
In this case, the share certificates were missing, therefore, the transferor should have sent off for new certificates. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Pennington v Waine exception to Milroy v Lord? |
|
Definition
| It is a very case specific exception. Testator gave documents to her agent. Testator also told donee of her intentions. Agent assured testator and the intended donee that there was no more for them to do. Donee acted in reliance on the ineffective transfer (became director of the company, something which he could only do it the transfer took place)... Therefore, even though, the testator had only given the documents to her agent (and thus the matter wasn't out of her hands, as she could just ask for them back), the court held it would be unconsciounable to deny the gift, because of the agent's assurance AND the donee's reliance on the ineffective transfer. |
|
|
Term
| Pennington v Waine [2002] |
|
Definition
CASE FACTS SPECIFIC EXCEPTION TO MILROY V LORD
Testator gave documents to her agent. Testator told donee of her intentions. Agent assured testator and the intended donee that there was no more for them to do. Donee acted in reliance on the ineffective transfer (became director of the company, something which he could only do if the transfer took place)... Therefore, even though, the testator had only given the documents to her agent (and thus the matter wasn't out of her hands, as she could just ask for them back), the court held it would be unconsciounable to deny the gift, because of the agent's assurance AND the donee's reliance on the ineffective transfer. |
|
|
Term
| What are the judges and academics opinions on Pennington v Waine? |
|
Definition
| THEY HATE IT - SAY IT HAS NO RATIONAL BASIS... THEREFORE, ONLY LIKELY TO BE USED WHERE THE FACTS OF THE CASE EXACTLY MATCH THE FACTS OF THE PENNINGTON CASE |
|
|
Term
| A further exception to the Milroy v Lord rule = proprietary estoppel. What is required for proprietary estoppel? |
|
Definition
1) Promise or assurance (more than once)
2) Detrimental reliance - donee must act to his detriment |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to illustrate how proprietary estoppel can be used as an exception to the Milroy v Lord rule? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL USED TO OVERCOME THE MILROY V LORD RULE
D = farmer
D befriended C
C dropped out of school at 15 to work on D's farm
C was treated as one of the family and told by the farmer 'one day this will be yours my son'
C worked on the farm for 40 years
then C & D fell out and D booted him off of his farm & said C was no longer entitled to the farm
HELD - C had acted to his detriment by dropping out of school, working on the farm for 40 years, and not making provisions for his retirement (as he expected to get the farm)... the D had clearly made lots of assurances/promises to the C. Therefore, = proprietary estoppel.
However, 'the award is based on the minimum equity to do justice', therefore, C only got the farm cottage, and was not given the rest of the farm estate |
|
|
Term
| When the courts find proprietary estoppel works, what happens w.r.t the 'victim's' award? |
|
Definition
| The award is based on the minimum equity required to do justice, so the claimant will not necessarily receive what they were led to expect (promised/assured they would get)... sometimes the claimant will get property, sometimes a licence, monetary sum...etc. |
|
|
Term
| A further exception to the Milroy v Lord Rule = Death Bed Gift. What is the leading case on this? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SET OUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EFFECTIVE DMC (DEATH BED GIFT)
1) The gift is made in contemplation of death, which the donor believes to be imminent
2) The gift is conditional on death (e.g. it is not intended to be fully effective until death and can be revoked before death)
3) There is delivery of the property; the donor must part with control of the property by handing it, or something which represents title of it, to the donee
IF ALL THESE ELEMENTS ARE SATISFIED, IF THE GIFT IS THEN IMPERFECT, THE GIFT WILL BE PERFECTED |
|
|
Term
| DMC - if there isn't actual delivery of the property, what can count as 'something which represents title to the property'? |
|
Definition
1) Sen v Headley [1991] - KEYS TO A STEEL BOX CONTAINING DEEDS TO HOUSE = OK
2) Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] - A SAVINGS ACCOUNT CAN BE THE SUBJECT OF DMC, BY HANDING OVER THE ESSENTIAL INDICA OF TITLE E.G. THE SAVINGS BOOK
Re Weston [1902] - POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BOOK
3) Re Beaumont [1902] - A CHEQUE FROM THE DONOR, PAYABLE TO THE DONEE CANNOT BE A DMC
4) Re Mead [1880] - A CHEQUE TO THE DONOR CAN BE SUBJECT TO A DMC, IF IT IS DELIVERED TO THE DONEE, EVEN IF IT ISN'T ENDORSED. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between Re Mead, and Jones v Lock?? |
|
Definition
| Re Mead concernd DMC. Jones was NOT a DMC. Also, in Mead, there was delivery of the cheque, whereas in Jones there was no delivery of the cheque from the donor to the donee. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A CHEQUE TO THE DONOR (from a 3rd party) CAN BE SUBJECT TO A DMC, IF IT IS DELIVERED TO THE DONEE, EVEN IF IT ISN'T ENDORSED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A CHEQUE FROM THE DONOR (e.g. written by the donor), PAYABLE TO THE DONEE CANNOT BE A DMC |
|
|
Term
| Birch v Treasury Solicitor [1951] |
|
Definition
| A SAVINGS ACCOUNT CAN BE THE SUBJECT OF DMC, BY HANDING OVER THE ESSENTIAL INDICA OF TITLE E.G. THE SAVINGS BOOK |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| KEYS TO A STEEL BOX CONTAINING DEEDS TO HOUSE = OK |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| DELIVERY OF A POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BOOK = SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS ACCOUNT SUBJECT TO A DMC |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DELIVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO DMC
Donor was about to die
by the Donor's directions, items were put in to three parcels & sealed, and addressed to each of his nephews
Donor declared that they were intended for the named donees, and that they should be delivered to them after his death
The parcels were then placed in a chest, to which the donor retained the key
HELD - no sufficient delivery |
|
|
Term
| What are some random rules of DMC? |
|
Definition
a) The delivery need not be from the hands of the donor into the hands of the donee. It could travel from the donor's agent to the donee's agent... however, the property must be in the donee's agent's hands, or the donee's hands BEFORE the donor dies
b) If the donor sends the property via their agent, if the donor dies before the donor's agent passes it on to the donee or the donee agents, delivery = inneffective
c) think of it as... giving the donee the means of getting at the subject matter, and correspondingly depriving the donor of his power of dealing with it.
d) Keys to a house WOULDN'T work, they only signify entry |
|
|
Term
| A further exception to the rule in Milroy v Lord is 'fortuitous vesting'. What is that? |
|
Definition
| If the intended transferee later happens to obtain the legal title, the failure to initially transfer the legal title to him may be cured. |
|
|
Term
| From what case does fortuitous vesting come from? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
WHERE A DONOR INTENDS TO MAKE A RELEASE FROM A DEBT DURING HIS LIFETIME, BUT FAILS TO VEST THE LEGAL INTEREST IN THE DONEE, THE RELEASE MAY STILL BE PERFECTED IF LEGAL TITLE VESTS IN THE DONEE BECAUSE HE BECOMES PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE/EXECUTOR/EXECUTRIX TO THE DONOR.. PROVIDED THE DONOR HAD A CONTINUING INTENTION TO MAKE THE GIFT UP UNTIL DEATH.
D borrowed £1000 from his grandmother
Grandmother was living with D and paying D rent
D agreed to pay grandmother back in installments, and grandmother deducted £100 from D each month
however, 2 months later, the grandmother expressly forgave the debt, and began paying the D the full monthly rent
grandmother continued paying full rent until her death
upon her death, D became executor of her will
the grandmother's estate (C) sued D for the outstanding debt, on the basis that oral release from a debt is ineffective
HELD - BIRD BECAME EXECUTOR & THEREFORE OWNED THE LEGAL TITLE TO EVERYTHING THE GRANDMA OWNED. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH D WAS NEVER RELEASED FROM THE DEBT, COURT HELD THAT DUE TO GRANDMOTHER'S CONTINUED INTENTION TO GIVE THE RELEASE FROM THE DEBT, THE IMPERFECTED REALEASE FROM IT WAS PERFECTED. |
|
|
Term
| To what type of property does fortuitous vesting DEFINITELY apply? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which case confirms that the rule in Strong v Bird [1874] applies to gifts as well as a release from a debt? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE RULE IN STRONG V BIRD APPLIES TO GIFTS
(STRONG V BIRD CONCERNED RELEASE FROM A DEBT) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IN ORDER FOR THE RULE IN STRONG V BIRD TO APPLY, THERE MUST BE AN INTENTION OF GIVING, NOT AN INTENTION TO GIVE (e.g. but for the death, the gift would have been given in the near future) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IN ORDER FOR THE RULE IN STRONG V BIRD TO WORK, THERE MUST BE A CONTINUING INTENTION TO GIVE THE GIFT |
|
|
Term
| In order for the rule in Strong v Bird [1874] to work, what must there be? |
|
Definition
1) INTENTION TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE GIFT
2) INTENTION CONTINUES UNTIL DEATH
3) DONEE ACQUIRES LEGAL TITLE AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE |
|
|
Term
| Which case put forward the argument that trusts may be subject to the rule in Strong v Bird? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
HELD THAT TRUSTS ARE BE SUBJECT TO THE RULE IN STRONG V BIRD... BUT ALSO, THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW THE TRUSTEE ACQUIRED LEGAL TITLE, STRONG V BIRD WOULD STILL WORK TO PERFECT THE TRUST, AND ALSO THAT IMMEDIACY AND CONTINUING INTENTION WERE NOT NECESSARY... THEREFORE, = DODGY RULING = ODD LAW, CRITICISED FOR APPLYING STRONG V BIRD TOO WIDELY
Man died, left property for wife for life and daughter remainderman
As part of a marriage covenant, daughter agreed to settle property she acquired, including after-acquired property
unfortunately, daughter died before her mother
when mother died, Helen's interest fell in to posession
X was the sole surviving trustee of the father's will and as such, the legal title to the property vested in him. However, he was also the sole surviving trustee of the daughter's marriage settlement.... therefore, he was trustee of the daughter's settlement AND, because he was trustee of the father's settlement, he held the legal title to the property the daughter had intended to form the trust.
HELD - X was required to hold the property on the trusts of the daughter's settlement |
|
|
Term
| What do you do if you have an exam question that calls for you to apply Re Ralli? |
|
Definition
| Apply Re Ralli, but also comment that it applies strong v bird in a weird way, and also that it has been heavily criticised... and therefore, who knows what might happen to this ruling. |
|
|
Term
| If you intend to make someone a trustee, but you fail to vest the legal title in them before your death... however, the intended trustee then acquires the legal title because they become executor/executrix of your estate, what might happen? |
|
Definition
| The Strong v Bird rule may apply, as was said in the case of Re Ralli (case which kind of extends Strong v Bird to cover trusts). Therefore, as intended trustee has acquired legal title, they may have to carry out the trust as intended. However, in Re Ralli, the trustee didn't acquire legal title as executor of the will, instead Re Rali suggests that legal title can be acquired my any legitimate means, also, there was no immediacy (as it was her remainderman interest)... which appears to make Strong v Bird EXCEPTIONALLY wide, therefore, it may be stuck down. |
|
|
Term
| A further exception to the rule in Milroy v Lord = 'one is enough', what does this mean? |
|
Definition
Transfer to several trustees (of one particular trust), where it turns out that one of the trustees is also the transferor.
e.g. I own shares. I am one of many trustees for a trust. I decide to make my shares part of the trust for which I am a trustee. However, I die before I transfer the legal title to the other trustees. As one of the trustees (me) already held the legal title, there will be a benevolant construction, and all the other trustees will acquire the necessary legal title as well. |
|
|
Term
| Choithram v Pagarani [2001] |
|
Definition
ONE FOR ALL RULE. IF ONE TRUSTEE ALREADY HAS LEGAL TITLE (BECAUSE THEY ARE THE TRANSFEROR), IF THEIR TRANSFER OF LEGAL TITLE IS INEFFECTIVE, EQUITY WILL CURE THIS... BENEVOLENT CONSTRUCTION.
C decides to leave his wealth to a charity
C also happened to be a trustee of that charity
C died before successfully managing to transfer his wealth to the charity's other trustees
HELD - as legal title was already vested in one of the trustees (C), legal title spread to the other trustees - effective self-declaration of trust. |
|
|
