Equity & Trusts - Validity of a Trust Flashcards

This flashcard deck was created using Flashcardlet's card creator

0
Q

Knight v Knight

A

3 certainties required for declaration:

  • Intention
  • Subject matter
  • Objects
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Re Beaney

A

S must have necessary mental capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Re Adams & Kensington Vestry

A

Predatory words insufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury

A

Precatory words + gift-over = sufficient intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Re Steele’s WT

A

Following earlier precedent is sufficient intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Re Kayford

A

Word ‘trust’ need not be used

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Paul v Constance

A

Intention may be implied through conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Palmer v Simmons

A

Objective criteria needed for apportionment

‘bulk’ is too uncertain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Re Golay

A

Workable formula by S will be certain

‘reasonable income’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re London Wine Corp

A

Tangible property must be identifiable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hunter v Moss

A

Intangible property of the same class/type need not be separated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Boyce v Boyce

A

Beneficial shares must be determinable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Morice v Bishop of Durham

A

Identifiable Bs required to enforce trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

IRC v Broadway Cottages

A

FT subject to conceptual and evidential certainty test; all Bs must be named

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

McPhail v Doulton

A

DTs are subject to IAT where B must belong to an ascertainable class

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Re Barlow

A

‘friends’ is not an ascertainable class

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re Barden

A

‘relatives’ is an ascertainable class

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Re Tuck’s ST

A

3rd party may cure uncertainty as to IAT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

ex p West Yorks MCC

A

Class may fail if administratively unworkable

19
Q

s53(1)(b) LPA 1925

A

Trusts affecting land must be:

  • evidenced in writing
  • signed by S/his agent
20
Q

s53(2) LPA 1925

A

Dispenses with need for writing in the operation of CT/RT

21
Q

Hodgson v Marks

A

CT will be imposed to prevent operation of fraud (in relation to land)

22
Q

Lloyds Bank v Rossett

A

CT may be imposed for family home w/o need for writing

23
Q

s9 Wills Act 1837

A

Must be in writing, signed and witnessed

24
s52(1) LPA 1925
Land must be conveyed by deed
25
s1 LP(MP)A 1989
Deed must be: - signed and witnessed - identified as such - (before 31st July 1990) delivered
26
s53(1)(c) LPA 1925
Equitable interest must be disposed of in writing
27
Vandervell v IRC
Conveyance of legal and equitable title does not amount to disposition, thus no writing required
28
Vandervell's Trusts No. 2
Declaration of trust in favour of new B with old B's consent is not a disposition, thus no writing required
29
Grey v IRC
Oral instruction from B to T to transfer equitable interest to another B is a disposition, thus requires writing
30
Grange v Wilberforce
Declaration of sub trust by B is not a disposition, thus no writing required (provided B retains some active duties)
31
Neville v Wilson
Oral contract to transfer equitable interest gives rise to CT, thus no writing required (BUT cf. contrasting view in Oughtred v IRC)
32
Gardener v Rowe
Improper constitution of trust only renders it unenforceable
33
Milroy v Lord
Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift, UNLESS - every effort - unconscionable - partial constitution - indirect constitution - marriage consideration - enduring promise - DMC
34
Re Rose
Transferor must make every effort
35
Pennington v Waine
Equity will intervene if unconscionable to allow donor to go back on promise, despite not making every effort
36
Choithram v Pagarani
Partial constitution, e.g. settlor's estate as co-trustee, may give rise to full constitution
37
Re Ralli
Constitution may come about by indirect means, e.g. executorship
38
Pullan v Koe
Marriage consideration will entitle volunteer (or his issue) at common law to compel constitution
39
Strong v Bird
An enduring promise to effect a transfer will allow donee to assert claim, provided: - donor's intention remains unchanged - donee accedes to property though executorship of will
40
Re Gonin
Promise must be enduring
41
Cain v Moon
A donatio mortis causa will be valid provided it satisfies 3 requirements: - gift made in contemplation of death - subject matter appropriately delivered - gift made contingent upon death, i.e. revokable if donor recovers
42
Wilkes v Allington
Contemplation does not mean expectation of death | Examples include military service, illness
43
Sen v Headley
DMC of land must give deeds to donee (or reveal location)
44
DMCs of chattels necessitate physical delivery or means of control (Re Mustapha)
DMC of choses in action requires essential indicia to pass, e.g. Pass book (Re Dillon)
45
Jones v Selbey
DMC cannot be revoked by will