Gifts And Trusts; Three Certainties; Constitution Of Express Trusts Flashcards
Milroy v Lord๐โ
Different ways a legal owner can dispose himself of his property:
Outright gift.
Transfer on trust.
Self declaration of trust.
Leading case showing that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.
Re Cole
Not enough just to show intention, you must also deliver it to the person, if this is impractical you must do it by deed. Husband showed a table to wife and said its all yours. Not enough to show intention, he also had to deliver the property.
Glaister-Carlisle v Glaister-Carlisle. ๐ฉ
Intention to transfer legal title must be clear and unoquivical. Husband and wife having argument. He throws dog at wife and said here, keep the bitch. This was not manifested as a clear intention. Actions were heat of the moment anger.
Jones v Lock๐ถ๐ผ
Mr Roberts had a cheque payable to him for ยฃ900. He handed the ยฃ900 cheque to his baby as a birthday present and said, I give this to baby. He died a few days later. The cheque had not been endorsed to the new owner. Tried to argue self declaration of trust. Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. Equity will not treat an imperfect gift as self declaration of a trust.
Re Rose
Three conditions for Re Rose to be invoked and perfect an imperfect gift in equity:
Correct method of transfer used.
Does all he can to make transfer happen.
Documents must end up with registrar of the company.
Mascall v Mascall๐
Made Re Rose principles applicable to land and adjusted test to:
Transferor must use correct method.
Need not do everything within power to effect transfer butโฆ
Transfer must be irrevocable by transferor(out of their hands).
Zeital v Kaye
The share certificates were missing. The transferor should have sent off for new certificates.
Pennington v Waine
Testator gave documents to agent. Testator told donee of intentions. Agent assured them there was no more they could do. Donee relied on this. Unconscionable to deny gift because of agents assurance and the donees reliance on the ineffective transfer.
Courts say itโs a very irrational case - only likely to be used when facts match exactly.
Gillet v Holt๐๐๐๐
Claimant worked on farm for 40 years - no education, no pension because he believes he was to inherit the farm. Acted in detriment. Would be unconscionable to deprive gift. Given farm house. Proprietary estoppel. Minimum to do justice.
Cain v Moonโฐ
Death bed gift. Gift must be made in contemplation of death, which donor believed to be imminent. Gift must be conditional on death. There must be delivery of property. If the gift is imperfect, the gift will be perfected.
Strong v Bird ๐ต๐ผ
Bird borrowed ยฃ1000 from grandmother. She was living with Bird and paying rent. Bird agreed to pay back in instalments. She expressly forgave debt after 2 months and began paying rent. She continued until her death. Bird was executor of will. Claimant sued Bird for outstanding debt on basis that oral. Release from a debt is ineffective. Courts held that due to her continuing intention, the imperfected release from debt was perfected. For this to work there must be:
Intention to make an immediate gift.
Intention continues until death.
Donee acquires legal title as personal representative.
Re Rallis ๐จโ๐ฉโ๐ง
Man died leaving property to wife for life and daughter in remainder. Daughter dies so husband is trustee of marriage settlement concerning after acquired property. Mother dies so husband brings action as to wether he owns fathers residuary estate under daughters will. Trust had been fully constituted by accident.
Choithram v Pagarani
Pagarani leaves wealth to charity. He is trustee of that charity. He dies before successfully transferring wealth to charityโs other trustees. As the legal title was already vested in one of the trustees (Pagarani) the legal title spread to the other trustees - effective self declaration of trust.
Re James
Extended rule in Stone v Bird to apply to administrators, however this is doubted academically and I utter in Re Gonin as when you make someone an executor you intend to give them the legal title, this is not the case of courts appointed administrators.
An imperfect gift or real property made by a donor to his housekeeper was perfected when she herself was appointed as one of two administrators of his estate.
Thomas v Times Book Co ๐
Thomas was an author who lost manuscript. Told BBC producer that if he found it he could keep it. BBC producer did find it. Held there was a gift. Continuous intention, finding was the delivery.
Delivery and intention just coincide. Intention can be continuous until revoked.
Knight v Knight ๐ด๐ผ๐ฆ๐ผ๐ฆ๐ป๐ง๐ป
Richard Knight made a will passing estate down male family line. Estate went to Richard knight who left estate to his brother Thomas Knight and descendant males. Thomas died intestate and estate went to daughter Charlotte. Charlottes brother Edward claimed Thomas was bound to make strict settlement to him. Richard argued no trust created and properties went to went to Thomas in absolute possession and onto Charlotte.
Richards v Delbridge๐
Richards employed family member, Edward. He wanted to hand over his business to Edward showing his intention to make this gift by endorsing on the business lease a memorandum stating that it belonged to Edward. The gift failed because it was imperfect. There was no express declaration of trust it was intended as an outright gift and motto be held on trust.
Lambe v Eames ๐ต๐ผ๐จโ๐ฉโ๐งโ๐ฆ
Testator gave all estate to widow stating, to be at her disposal in any way she may think best for the benefit of herself and her family. Held that a trust was not to be found unless intention to create a trust was clear, in this case it was not.
Re Adams and Kensington Vestry
Testator left property to wife absolutely in full confidence that she will do what is right as to the disposal between his children in her lifetime or by will. Held she took the property free from any trust in favour of the children.
Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury
Words, in full confidence, created a trust - testator left estate to his wife absolutely in full confidence that she will make such use of it as I should have made myself and at her death she will devise it to such one or more of my nieces as she should see fit. Words held not to impose a trust on the donee, court will look at circumstances not just words.
Paul v Constance
Judge found intention to create a trust where a man told his cohabitant that the money in his bank account was as much hers as his and ordered half the moe t to be paid to her after his death, rather than to his wife. He essentially had declared himself a trustee of the moneyโs for himself and the cohabitant. This was an oral declaration of trust.
Sprange v Barnard
Testatrix in her will gave her husband ยฃ300 for his sole use and on his death the remaining part is to be divided between her brothers and sisters. Held there was no certainty as to property so there was non trust. Trust must be certain at moment of creation.
Re Steeleโs Will Trust ๐
Solicitor drafted trust deed for client but used an outmoded precedent that featured precatory words - I request my son to do all in his power. There should have been no trust because of lack of certainty but judge concluded that deliberate use of precedent demonstrated necessary intention to declare a trust of a diamond necklace.
Re Kayford
Mail order business in difficulty and accountant decided cut omens pay in advance for goods. Company went into insolvency and customers wanted money back. Held intention accountant demonstrated was to segregate money so it could be attributed to the customers. Intention to create trust without using the word trust.