CHAPTERS 1-3 CREATION OF TRUSTS Flashcards
(34 cards)
Certainty of intention?
Settlor must have used words that impose a duty on someone to act as a trustee, words must impose a duty on the trustee to hold property for someone else.
Paul v Constance – word ‘trust’ not needed, ‘money is as much yours as mine’ suffices.
Precatory words express a wish, hope or expectation, not create a trust, ie ‘trusting’ ‘hope’
Obligatory or mandatory wording must be used if the settlor is looking to create a trust.
If precatory wording used, person will be deemed to have made a gift.
Certainty of subject-matter
(a) the trust property must be described with certainty; and
(b) the settlor must define the beneficiaries’ interests with certainty.
Property must be identifiable + currently owned. Future property does not apply. List out individual items. ‘bulk’ or ‘some’ insufficient.
Re London Wine Co company did not separate or label each customer’s consignment of wine on trust. Intention there but no subject-matter certainty.
Hunter v Moss sufficient with same shares that were indistinguishable; you can create a trust over part of a collection of items, so long as the items in that collection are all identical, likely only for intangible property. Tangible ones MUST be separate to be specified.
The trust will fail if the beneficiaries’ shares or interests in the
If the settlor intended to create a trust with themselves as trustee, but there is no certainty of trust property, what happens?
No trust is created. The settlor will remain the outright owner.
What happens if the settlor transfers property to a third party and declares that that person shall be a
trustee over ‘some of it’ and that a gift is intended over the rest?
The third party will take the entire property absolutely, free from any trust.
If the settlor has appointed a trustee and intended to create a trust for the benefit of individuals but does not specify the interests that those individuals will take?
Trustee shall hold the trust fund for the benefit of the settlor under a ‘resulting trust’.
Hunter v Moss / London Wine Co?
Certainty of subject-matter sufficient with same shares that were indistinguishable; you can create a trust over part of a collection of items, so long as the items in that collection are all identical, likely only for intangible property. Tangible ones (ie wine) MUST be SEPARATE AND LABELLED to be specified.
Certainty of objects test for fixed interest trusts?
Complete list test (conceptual AND evidential certainty). Must be possible to draw up complete list for each + every beneficiary.
Conceptual certainty: is description of class CLEAR and OBJECTIVE? If language lacks precision, trust will fail. Re Barlow – ‘friends’ generally not objective.
Evidential certainty: do we have evidence to identify all beneficiaries that will benefit?
Certainty of objects for discretionary trusts?
Trustees do not necessary have to draw up list of possible beneficiaries. But need to insure right people are beneficiaries.
Given postulant + conceptual certainty test: can it be said with certainty whether any given postulant (individual) is or is not a member of class of objects? Conceptual certainty = has the settlor laid down sufficient criteria when describing the class so that it is clear what sort of person will qualify? If the language used to describe the class is unclear and lacks precision (ie the trustees cannot say with certainty what sort of person they are looking for), then the trust will fail.
Evidential certainty is not prerequisite, trust will not fail if difficult to prove.
Extra considerations for discretionary trusts only?
Administrative unworkability
Even if class of people clear, next test is administrative unworkability.
A discretionary trust will be administratively unworkable and invalid, if the class is so hopelessly wide as ‘not to form anything like a class’ - McPhail v Doulton + R v District Auditor - ‘any inhabitants’. Question of fact – much will depend on the size of the class compared to the size of the trust fund
Capriciousness
If absolutely no rational reason for the trust or absolutely no rational basis on which the trustees can exercise their discretion to distribute trust property (ie the terms of the trust require trustees to ‘consider only an accidental conglomeration of persons who have no discernible link with the settlor or any institution’; Re Manisty’s Settlement
What if there is no certainty of objects?
If there is no certainty of objects (or, in the case of a discretionary trust, the trust is administratively unworkable or capricious), then there will be a resulting trust in favour of the settlor.
Remoteness of vesting
For trusts created on or after 1 April 2010, the perpetuity period is 125 years. Unlikely these days that any trust will offend this rule.
Oral vs Documentary declaration of trust
Gill v Thind: documentary vs oral declaration. Key difference = key difference is that evidence of B’s SUBJECTIVE INTENTIONS and subsequent conduct are admissible for oral declaration but inadmissible for documentary declaration. Gist of words examined on whether on balance of probabilities, intention shown.
Documentary declaration – question of fact + law
If A asserts that B declared a trust in writing:
(1) A has to prove that B had signed the document. (Question of fact)
(2) A has to show that the document, properly interpreted, constituted a declaration of trust. (Question of law)
Oral declaration – question of fact + fact
If A asserts that B made an oral declaration of trust:
(1) A has to prove what B said. (Question of fact)
(2) A has to show that this demonstrated an intention to declare a trust. (Question of fact)
Declaration of trust over land?
S53 (1)(b) LPA 1925: declaration must be evidenced in writing signed by settlor. Unenforceable if not.
Declaration itself does not have to be in writing, but subsequently needs to be confirmed in writing. Letter sufficient. Signed written document does NOT have to be sent to beneficiary.
Material terms of trust (who trustee is, trust property, beneficiaries + interest) NECESSARY.
Hudson v Hathway:
- Email is written document.
- Typing of name = signature at end. Full name/prefixed by some or all initials/ just initials/just first name or nickname by which they are known.
- Email will be signed where the settlor has previously inserted a signature block into their email settings which is then applied to all outgoing mail, ie where the settlor has typed a common salutation above that signature block.
- mail address of the settlor, by itself, is not a signature. ‘From joe.bloggs@aol.co.uk’ is insufficient to comply with s 53(1)(b).
Transfer / constitution with land?
To transfer legal title to third party trustee, settlor must:
a) Execute a deed (LPA 1925 s 52) that must satisfy s1 LPMPA 1989, the document is stated to be a deed or is stated to be signed as a deed; and person making the deed signs document in the presence of a witness who also signs it. (where land is reg, Form TR1 used – satisfies above)
b) Give the executed deed either to trustee (who passes it on to LR) or directly to LR.
General method of constituting an express trust?
Settlor must (a) make a valid declaration of trust and
(c) put assets into the trust.
In general, there are two methods of constituting an express lifetime (or inter vivos) trust:
(a) the settlor appoints themselves trustee for the beneficiary by making a valid declaration
of trust.
Or
(b) the settlor appoints someone else to be the trustee by making a valid declaration of trust.
Transfer of legal title in company shares within CREST
Only applies to certain public quoted companies. But they can also opt for paperwork transfer outside CREST.
Shares in designated public quotes companies are recorded electronically + those shares can be transferred electronically + instantaneously.
Shares in CREST are generally managed by a stockbroker, so the settlor will need to instruct the stockbroker to make the necessary transfer.
Transferring shares outside CREST?
If private company shares are to be part of trust fund, in order to transfer legal title to a third party trustee, settlor must:
(a) execute a stock transfer form – usually the settlor will execute the stock transfer form set
out in Sch 1 of the Stock Transfer Act 1963; and
(b) give the executed stock transfer form and relevant share certificate either to the trustee (who will then pass it on to the relevant company) or send it to the company direct.
The company’s secretary will then register the trustee as the new shareholder (and therefore
the new legal owner) in the register of members.
Legal title is not transferred until all steps have been completed and the trustee is the new
registered shareholder.
Transferring money? Cash, electronically and via cheque?
(a) If the settlor hands over cash to a trustee, legal title to the cash passes upon delivery.
(b) If the settlor transfers money electronically from their bank account to the trustee’s, legal
title to the cash passes once the monies have arrived in the trustee’s bank account.
(c) If the settlor hands over a cheque to a trustee, legal title passes once the cheque has
cleared. If the settlor dies before then, the cheque can no longer be cashed.
Transfer of chattels?
Chattels are anything else that is tangible in nature, eg jewellery, furniture, paintings etc. Title
to chattels is passed by physical delivery of the asset to the trustee or by deed.
Every effort test
Where settlor did everything they could to transfer legal title – may be complete in equity.
Settlor must have passed point of no return, put property ‘beyond recall’; take all steps required, ie executing and sending out all documents. All that remains = act of a 3rd party.
Ask what has happened to the transfer documents that the settlor must execute. If those
documents are still within the possession or control of the settlor, the settlor has not
satisfied the every effort test. If those documents are no longer within the possession
or the control of the settlor, the test has generally been satisfied.
Equity also may regard the trust as valid once the stage is reached when it would be
unconscionable (unfair) for the settlor to back out of creating a trust Pennington v Waine
Strong v Bird
If settlor wanted to create a trust with someone else acting as trustee, but did not get
round to transferring legal title during their lifetime, if that same person is then appointed as
their executor or administrator, the fact that that person has got legal title MAY BE sufficient to constitute the trust:
(a) the settlor intended to create an immediate trust with a third party acting as trustee;
(b) that trust was not immediately created due to a failure to comply with a relevant
transfer rule;
(c) the settlor’s intention continued up to their death (ie a subsequent will may negate); and
(d) the intended trustee acquired legal title to the trust property by becoming the settlor’s
executor or administrator.
Choithram v Pagani
- settlor Attempted to create lifetime trust of specific asset with self and 3rd party as trustees
- Done enough to validly declare self and 3rd party as trustees
- Has not done enough to transfer asset to self and 3rd party as trustees
Valid declaration makes it unconscionable for settlor to change his mind; has duty to complete transfer.
Vested interest?
If that beneficiary exists + does not have to satisfy any conditions imposed by the terms of the trust before becoming entitled to trust property – unconditional interest.
If beneficiary dies before the trust property is paid over to them, trust property will belong to the beneficiary’s estate, ie will pass under their will or intestacy.
Contingent interest?
Interest conditional upon the happening of some future event that may not happen, or if the beneficiary is not yet in existence (eg a trust for grandchildren and the settlor does not yet have any grandchildren but might in the future).
If a beneficiary dies before the happening of event, their interest will go back to the settlor unless the settlor has provided that the beneficial interest should pass to someone else.
A trust with a contingent interest is still a fixed interest trust, because the settlor has stipulated upfront who gets what (and when) and the trustees have no discretion when it comes to the distribution of trust property.