Equity & Trusts - Validity of a Trust Flashcards
This flashcard deck was created using Flashcardlet's card creator
Knight v Knight
3 certainties required for declaration:
- Intention
- Subject matter
- Objects
Re Beaney
S must have necessary mental capacity
Re Adams & Kensington Vestry
Predatory words insufficient
Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury
Precatory words + gift-over = sufficient intention
Re Steele’s WT
Following earlier precedent is sufficient intention
Re Kayford
Word ‘trust’ need not be used
Paul v Constance
Intention may be implied through conduct
Palmer v Simmons
Objective criteria needed for apportionment
‘bulk’ is too uncertain
Re Golay
Workable formula by S will be certain
‘reasonable income’
Re London Wine Corp
Tangible property must be identifiable
Hunter v Moss
Intangible property of the same class/type need not be separated
Boyce v Boyce
Beneficial shares must be determinable
Morice v Bishop of Durham
Identifiable Bs required to enforce trust
IRC v Broadway Cottages
FT subject to conceptual and evidential certainty test; all Bs must be named
McPhail v Doulton
DTs are subject to IAT where B must belong to an ascertainable class
Re Barlow
‘friends’ is not an ascertainable class
Re Barden
‘relatives’ is an ascertainable class
Re Tuck’s ST
3rd party may cure uncertainty as to IAT
ex p West Yorks MCC
Class may fail if administratively unworkable
s53(1)(b) LPA 1925
Trusts affecting land must be:
- evidenced in writing
- signed by S/his agent
s53(2) LPA 1925
Dispenses with need for writing in the operation of CT/RT
Hodgson v Marks
CT will be imposed to prevent operation of fraud (in relation to land)
Lloyds Bank v Rossett
CT may be imposed for family home w/o need for writing
s9 Wills Act 1837
Must be in writing, signed and witnessed