Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Succession & Trusts > Succession and Trusts > Flashcards

Succession and Trusts Flashcards

1
Q

MARCK v BELGIUM

A

ECHR breached because belgian law discriminated between legit and illegitimate kids

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

C v M

A

a close family member should have greater say than what happens to body that executor

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

CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL v MARCEL

A

council have no discretion and have an obligation to bury bodies (where there is no other option)

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

GROSVENOR’S TRS

A

INTESTATE CASE
had to decide whether 2nd husband who had fallen out of contact had outlived deceased
HELD - he had outlived her and so estate had to be divided and given to his estate

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

PATERSON PETR

A

Forfeiture rule
woman killed spouse after long provocation
HELD - s5 of forfeiture act could be modified

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

MACHIN’S TRS

A

death doesn’t defeat debts

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

NAISMITH v BOYES

A

where there is partial intestacy, a person can claim LEGACY AND LEGAL RIGHTS over the intestate part of the estate

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

STEWART v BRUCE’S TRUSTEES

A

an individual has time to consider what to renounce

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

COATS TRS v COATS

A

where there is only one legitim claimant then no collation necessary

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

G APPLICANT

A

financial guardian asks to execute a will written when an incapax person had capacity
= court failed to clarify whether a financial guardian can write a will for someone where no will existed in the first place

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

T APPLICANT

A

old lady incapax - will left house to her son and was her biggest asset but because of her condition, house had to be sold meaning son wouldn’t get it
= court will approve amendment of will in this circumstance as was seen to be giving effect to the incapax before they lost capacity

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

H APPLICANT

A

court will not rewrite wills

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

LAUDER v BRIGGS

A

custody of will presumption seen to be upheld by the court

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

W v W

A

sol firm lost will when moving premises
court satisfied based upon evidence that it was possible to show on the balance of probs that will was lost (not destroyed) and because it was professionally executed there was a copy on file and a deed of execution

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

DRAPER v THOMASON

A

bottom of will said ‘connie’
held to be a valid signature because it was at the end

letter was also addressed to her sister and listed what she wanted to happen after she died - was held to have testamentary intention

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

RHODES v PATERSON

A

will signed ‘lots of love mum’
court accepted mum and also interpreted ‘do not lose this letter’ as signifying testamentary intention

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

MCLAY v FARRELL

A

will signed and then under signature there was a further direction
held signature signifies the end of a will and so anything that comes under that isn’t formally included and so not valid

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

DAVIDSON v CONVY

A

doctrine of adoption
number of instructions on single sheet of paper unsigned inside an envelope that was signed - envelope also said ‘my will’
= held by signing envelope she’d adopted the contents of the envelope so court gave effect to the instructions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

CLYDE v CLYDE

A

revocation by destruction/presumed destruction where testator last known to be in possession of will but it can’t be found

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

DUTHIE’S TRS

A

implied revocation where subsequent wills don’t expressly revoke but have inconsistent provisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

STUART GORDON

A

woman v ill leading up to birth and died three days later
didn’t amend will to include new child
= post nattis rule rebutted - was held that her decision not to include child was intentional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

STEVENSON’S TRS

A

post nattis rule
only child can bring action for reduction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

LAWSON’S EXECUTOR

A

court will sit in testator’s shoes to determine what is meant in a will
= in this case ‘belongings’ couldn’t include the house the deceased had lived in latterly because they didn’t own that house when they wrote the will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

CROZIER’S TRUSTEE

A

key point of interest in will: ‘all my other effect’
= court put themselves in the testator’s shoes to determine that this meant a property he lived in with his granddaughter was to be left to her

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

CATHCART’S TRS

A

ambiguous names in will?
court will put themselves in testator’s shoes and consider fact specific evidence to determine who is being referred to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

NAYSMYTH’S TRS v NSPCC

A

ambiguous names
evidence needed in order to aid court in interpreting who is being referred to - in this case there wasn’t enough evidence to satisfy the court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

COUPTER’S JF v VALENTINE

A

designation by relationships in will is not a condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

SAVAGE

A

in determining whether a cohabitant is entitled to the estate court will consider all facts e.g whether they’d received any other payments etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

KERR v MANGAN

A

won’t distribute heritable property that isn’t in scotland

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

RBS PLC, PTR

A

where trustee is remunerated the court will consider whether it is in the interest of the trust (and therefore beneficiaries) for you to step down and someone replace you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

PARISH COUNCIL OF KILMARNOCK

A

truster can appoint a trustee who is a holder of office

32
Q

MARTIN v FERGUSON’S TRUSTEES

A

trustees may be appointed by descriptive reference

33
Q

KERR v CITY OF GGOW BANK

A

appointed trustee must accept office as trustee either EXPRESSLY or by IMPLICATION FROM ACTIVITIES
= someone who wishes to decline should do so expressly

prolonged inaction is insufficient as resignation

34
Q

MCKENNA v RAFIQUE

A

case suggests that there maybe various means of resignation by a trustee that the court would be willing to accept

35
Q

CIAROCCA v CIAROCCA

A

trustee acting in bad faith
complete inattention to duties and self dealing
obstruction to administration
= mere lack of cooperation or disharmony insufficient for removal = high hurdle

36
Q

SHENKEN

A

where trustee is sole trustee and dies, their executor takes up offie with limited powers

37
Q

IR v CLARK’S TRUSTEES

A

beneficiaries have a PERSONAL RIGHT against trustees

38
Q

GGOW CITY COUNCIL

A

supports dual patrimony doctrine

39
Q

MACPHERSON v MACPHERSON

A

no special wording needed for the creation of a trust but word ‘trust’ is used but isn’t essential

40
Q

FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v BOS

A

whether an arrangement is considered a trust depends on interpretation

41
Q

ALLAN’S TRS

A

truster-as-trustee
declaration of trust must be intimated to at least one of the beneficiaries (orally is sufficient)

42
Q

CLARK TAYLOR

A

for the creation of a trust:
- must be an asset in existence and the dedication of that asset or right to defined trust purposes
- beneficiaries defined
- must be delivery of trust deed or a satisfactory equivalent of delivery

43
Q

MARQUES OF LOTHIAN’S CB

A

default powers listed in s4 only exercisable in so far as they’re not at variance with the terms and purposes of the trust
- where not expressly prohibited, purpose of the trust deed must be considered as a whole

44
Q

THOMPSON v CAMPBELL

A

where they appoint an agent, trustees don’t incur liability for losses caused by negligence or fraud of an agent who they have legitimately appointed

45
Q

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM

A

trustees can delegate administrative functions but not discretionary powers

46
Q

SINCLAIR’S TRS

A

advances - trusts
where s16 is inapplicable CoS has similar power under nobile officium

47
Q

WOLFE v RICHARDSON

A

where there’s more than one trustee decisions must be made by at least a quorum of them

48
Q

WYSE

A

while a decision of majority of acting trustees will normally suffice, its important that all trustees are being consulted
= HELD - appointment of new trustees invalid due to lack of consultation

49
Q

RAES v MEEK

A

trustees have a duty of care and must bring to administration the SAME DEGREE OF DILLIGENCE THAT A MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE WOULD EXERCISE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HIS OWN AFFAIRS

50
Q

KNOW v MACKINNON

A

standard of care of trustees is OBJECTIVE

51
Q

LEITCH v LEITCH

A

there is an essential duty to keep accounts implied in every trust

52
Q

TOD’S TRS

A

beneficiaries are entitled to see the trust deed and to inspect accounts etc

53
Q

MELVILLE v NOBLE’S TRS

A

trustee invested and then just left the investment without keeping an eye on it
= held to be in breach of trust because a reasonable person wouldn’t just let their own investments sit

54
Q

DE FAZIO

A

agreement of all beneficiaries is needed for complete protection (when they have permitted a trustee to act auctor in rem suam). - and they all must be fully informed

55
Q

MARTIN v CITY OF EDI DISTRICT COUNCIL

A

trustees should consider what is best for beneficiaries’ interest and what they do mustn’t be unduly influences by their own political, religious etc beliefs

56
Q

LAMOND

A

in ultra vires breaches of trust, trustees are personally liable unless they can prove that they took all possible steps to establish the facts

57
Q

WARREN

A

In ultra vires breaches of trust, trustees are personally liable unless they can prove that they obtained legal advice as to the extent of their powers

58
Q

JOHNSTON

A

a transaction in breach of fiduciary duty is reducible by beneficiaries regardless of whether the trustee was acting in good faith

59
Q

CHERRY’S TRS

A

if trustee profits from breach of fiduciary duty their profit must be paid into trust patrimony regardless of whether or not the trust patrimony has suffered a loss

60
Q

SHARIF

A

there can be a petition for removal of trustee where there has been a SERIOUS breach of trust

61
Q

MILLAR’S TRS

A

co-trustees have a duty to take steps if trust funds re misappropriated by other trustees

62
Q

KNOX

A

imunity/exemption clauses in trust deeds
standard view in scotland is that no protection is given in cases of personal liability for consequences of acts of administration undertaken in bad faith or with gross negligence

63
Q

CUNNINGHAM

A

intra vires contracts with 3rd parties
in principle 3rd parties are entitled to be reimbursed from trust estate

64
Q

GORDON

A

intra vires contracts with 3rd parties
trust patrimony is liable unless trustee failed to disclose they were acting as a trustee (in which case they could be personally liable to the 3rd party)

65
Q

BROWN

A

intra vires contracts with third parties
trustees may be personally liable if they don’t make clear to the 3rd party that they are dealing with them in their capacity as a trustee and so only trust patrimony is bound

66
Q

MCCAIG

A

trust deeds are invalid where trust confers NO SUBSTANTIAL HUMAN BENEFIT to any individual or to the general public

67
Q

AITKEN’S TRS

A

trust purpose deemed both extravagant and unreasonable so held not to be valid

68
Q

MILLER’S TRS

A

where beneficiaries have an unqualified, vested right in fee to property, they can enforce payment of this even if trustees have instructions to the contrary

69
Q

FRASER V ROSE

A

where a condition to a legacy appears unreasonable, it is unlikely to be given effect to

70
Q

CATHCART

A

wills
deciding who is meant by vague reference/administrative error in a will - court will put themselves in the shoes of the testator to decide what was meant

71
Q

MALCOLM

A

trustee who cannot be contacted need not be consulted

72
Q

MAGISTRATES TOWN-COUNCIL OF ABERDEEN

A

trustees buying trust property is prohibited (conflict of interest)

73
Q

WILLIAMSON

A

wills
no such thing as a mistaken signature

74
Q

BROWRIGG’S EXCR

A

court reluctant to advise executor

75
Q

REZAC’S EXCRS

A

power to sell held to be at variance with purposes of a will

Succession & Trusts (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions