Mapa mental
3 CERTAINTIES

Mind map: three certainties of a trust
Contenido del mapa
3 CERTAINTIES
Certainty of Intention Clear expression of an intention to create a trust
- RE KAYFORD - do not need to use the word trust
- Precatory words, hope wish, desire, unlikely to create a trust
- LAMB v EAMES
- RE HAMILTON - Court will not allow a precatory trust to be raised without evidence of intention
- Showing intention
- PAUL v CONSTANCE - Money is as much yours as mine
- JONES v LOCK - I give this to baby for himself
- PAUL v CONSTANCE - Money is as much yours as mine
- Showing intention
- RE HAMILTON - Court will not allow a precatory trust to be raised without evidence of intention
- LAMB v EAMES
- Precatory words, hope wish, desire, unlikely to create a trust
- RE KAYFORD - do not need to use the word trust
CERTAINTY OF SUBJECT MATTER
- The property and beneficiaries interest in it must be certain
- Fixed trusts Trustees under an obligation to distribute - Uncertainty of subject matter renders the trust void
- Court and trustees must be able to identify land
- SPRANGE v BARNARD - remaining part that husband did not want - unknown what would be left, trust failed
- LONDON WINES CO - ID of specific property out of a larger amount, buyers paid for wine (tangible goods) stored in warehouse.
- Co went bust, wine not separated from general stock, no trust.as the wine formed part of the bulk no way to know what had been paid for
- C/F HUNTER v MOSS - Settlor owned 950 shares (intangible goods), orally declared trust for 50, but which 50. AC held a trust here
- As long as shares of same class in same company, no need to segregate, decision was widely criticised
- C/F HUNTER v MOSS - Settlor owned 950 shares (intangible goods), orally declared trust for 50, but which 50. AC held a trust here
- Co went bust, wine not separated from general stock, no trust.as the wine formed part of the bulk no way to know what had been paid for
- LONDON WINES CO - ID of specific property out of a larger amount, buyers paid for wine (tangible goods) stored in warehouse.
- SPRANGE v BARNARD - remaining part that husband did not want - unknown what would be left, trust failed
- Court and trustees must be able to identify land
- Fixed trusts Trustees under an obligation to distribute - Uncertainty of subject matter renders the trust void
- The property and beneficiaries interest in it must be certain
Discretionary trusts
- Settlor leaves property to trustees, for whoever in such shares as they see fit
- Can affect the rules of certainty
- RE GOLAYS WILL TRUST
- Lady to enjoy flat for lifetime and receive a reasonable income from other properties
- Trust was valid, executors could choose the flat and court, if required, could quantify a reasonable income
- RE KNAPTON - Testatrix didn't specify who would get which house or how to choose. Valid trust, top of list had first choice.
- As nieces & nephews were a class, lots were drawn on who got to choose first
- If not clear who gets what, trust fails and results back to residue
- As nieces & nephews were a class, lots were drawn on who got to choose first
- RE KNAPTON - Testatrix didn't specify who would get which house or how to choose. Valid trust, top of list had first choice.
- Trust was valid, executors could choose the flat and court, if required, could quantify a reasonable income
- Lady to enjoy flat for lifetime and receive a reasonable income from other properties
- Settlor leaves property to trustees, for whoever in such shares as they see fit
Certainty of Object/Beneficiaries
- Must be for ascertainable beneficiaries, humans or corporations, as long as have this, trust of perfect obligation
- If trust for a purpose, trust of imperfect obligation, if doesn't fall within exceptions is void
- Must be for ascertainable beneficiaries, humans or corporations, as long as have this, trust of perfect obligation
Información
- Descripción
- Degree Equity and Trusts Mapa Mental sobre 3 CERTAINTIES, creado por costafortune el 02/05/2013.
- Creado por
- costafortune
- Visitas
- 415
- Etiquetas
- Valoración