Trusts Flashcards
When does a resulting trust arise
(1) An interest under an express trust fails
(2) An express trust fails to exhaust the beneficial interest
(3) A person makes a voluntary transfer or purchase in the name of another
=> beneficial interest reverts to the settlor or the settlor’s estate
When does a constructive trust arise
Equitable remedy imposed by a court to prevent an unjust enrichment of one person at the expense of another as the result of wrongful conduct (eg fraud, undue influence, breach of fid duty eg when a 3rd party receives trust property with knowledge of a trust)
Express trusts requirements
3 certainties
Trust can be fixed (ie trustees have no discretion as to how (who or how much) the property is to be allocated among the inds) or discretionary (ie trustee under a duty to select Bs from a call and decide how much they are to receive)
Certainty of intention
Must be imperative, no precatory words (ie not a mere hope/wish/suggestion)
Must intend trust to take effect immediately
Void for uncertainty of intention => passes as outright gift to person who would’ve been the trustee
Certainty of subject matter
Must identify the trust property clearly (objectively)
Need not separate intangible items if indistinguishable (eg identical shares)
Certain if the settlor gives a workable formula for calculating the amount ie a mechanism to deal with uncertainty (again - objective)
Void => property reverts to settlor
Certainty of objects
Ie those who will/may benefit must be certain
Fixed trust => complete list test
- Ie valid if possible to draw up a comprehensive list of each and every beneficiary otherwise trust fails
- Description of beneficiaries requires conceptual (words need a precise, objective meaning) and evidential (must identify each and every member of the class) certainty
Discretionary trust => give postulant test
- Not necessary for whole class to be ascertainable as long as description of class is clear enough to enable court to decide whether Ts have acted within their powers in paying funds to a particular individual
- need conceptual certainty but not evidential
BUT trust can still fail due to administrative unworkability (ie objects too wide/large to form a class) or capriciousness (ie irrationality)
Objects uncertain => resulting trust in favour of the settlor or the settlor’s successors is presumed
Beneficiary principle
Trust cannot exist without ascertainable human Bs (unless honorary trust or charitable trusts - enforceable y AG)
Who can be a trustee
Anyone who has capacity to acquire and hold property for their own benefit
Ie can be private ind, trust corp but NOT a minor
Number of trustees required
No min or max number of Ts required
Trust of land => max 4 (and usually min 2)
What happens if trustee dies, refuses to accept app, or resigns?
Trust will not fail
Court appoint successor T unless it is clear that settlor intended trust to continue only so long as a particular T served
BUT absence of a T at the creation of a trust may cause an attempted inter vivos trust to fail for lack of delivery
Testamentary trust will not fail for lack of a T
Rules against perpetuity
Prevent a settlor from creating interests under a trust which take effect long into the future
Against remoteness of vesting - ie Property must vest within 125 years (is otherwise void)
Against inalienability
- Applies to trusts for non-charitable purposes (ie honory trusts)
- Trust period limited to 21 years or for rest of a living person’s life + 21 years
- Void from the outset if the trust capital is not freely alienable within the relevant perpetuity period
- Eg phrases such as ‘as long as the law allows’ upheld (assumed to be 21 yrs)
Creation of inter vivos trusts (declaration)
aka tell the trustee to hold the property on trust (ie declaration of trust)/declare self as trustee
If self must demonstrate by words or conduct that they intend to be legally bound
Over personalty => no formalities
Over land => evidenced in signed writing
Creation of inter vivos trusts (trust constituted/vested in Ts)
Settlor trustee => constitution is automatic (so no need to look at formalities for transfer)
Settlor not trustee => must transfer the property (ie legal title in the property) to the trustees (all) (so look at formalities below)
Formalities:
Land => deed which is sent to HMLR
Shares => Complete Stock Transfer Form and send with share certificate to donee (Donee then sends to the company in order to be registered)
Chattels => passed by physical delivery of the asset to the transferee, or by a deed
Legal title to a bank account passed by providing a signed, written notice of the transfer to the bank
Formalities to create an inter vivos trust fail/not followed
=> will fail (equity will not assist a vounteer)
BUT special rules apply/help?
- every effort test
- donatio mortis causa
- Fortuitous vesting (rule in Strong v Bird)
- proprietary estoppel (/unconscionability)
Every effort test
if the donor has done all legally required of him to transfer the property and effectively relinquished control (ie going past the point of no return)
=> trust is enforceable
(usually where deed/transfer has been executed and passed to donnee, but donnee has failed to register)
Donatio mortis causa (gift by reason of death)
May be enforced if:
- Donor delivers the property to a donee while in contemplation of imminent or impending death
- Requires objective belief that death is imminent
- With the intention that the property be given to the donnee if the donor dies and be returned if the donor survives (ie is conditional on death); and
- Donor dies
Delivery must be effected (whether actual or constructive, eg a car by delivery of the keys to it)
Fortuitous vesting (rule in Strong v Bird)
Trust enforced if:
- Property vests in recipient as PR/executor on donor’s death
- Intention to create immediate gift (or trust) of specific property (Not conditional on an event in the future)
- Gift fails due to lack of formalities
- Intention unchanged up until death (BUT if in the meantime the donor deals with the property in some way that suggests it is still owner by the donor the rule will not apply)
Proprietary estoppel
Enforced if:
- Donor executes transfer document
- Donor has told donee of gift
- Donee has acted in reliance of gift (to their detriment – proprietary estoppel is an exception to the rule that equity will not assist a volunteer)
- Unconscionable to recall the gift
Formalities of a testamentary trust
Wills Act – in writing; signed by testator in joint presence of two witnesses who sign
All terms must be incl (though may be later edited by a codicil, provided that it is also witnessed and signed as above)
3Cs, B principle and rules against perpetuities satisfied
Will acts as declaration and constitution (so no requirement for transfer as property wil be vested in the Ts by the testator’s PRs after death)
Secret v half secret trusts
Fully secret => looks like an outright gift to a nominated person (in reality the T)
- B must prove terms of trust by clear and convincing evidence
- enforceable even if communication describing the trust was not made until after the will was executed
- BUT fails if legatee (ie proposed T) expressly refuses or did not know until after settlor’s death
Half secret => mentions that trust exists but keep identity of B secret
- B can enforce provided their identity was communicated ot the T AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE making the will and language of will is consistent with that communication
- Fail => resulting trust for estate
Types of trust interest
In possession (can enjoy immediately- often life interest) vs in remainder (interest is ‘postponed’ as have to wait until another beneficiary’s right to enjoyment expires)
Vested (no conditions attached) vs Contingent (dependent on future event or beneficiary not yet in existence)
Absolute (receive capital) vs Limited (receive income only)
Rule in Saunders v Vautier
Bs can end trust if:
- 18+ and of sound mind
- All agree
- Are all in existence and ascertained, and together are absolutely entitled
Can apply to FTs or DTs
- FT => must be no diminution in the value of B’s interests
- Dt => difficult to engage in rule if large group, but possible if small
What are resulting trusts
= implied by law based on presumed by unexpressed intention of the settlor
=> trustees will hold the property on RT for the settlor/their estate
Arise where:
(1) Trusts arising following a voluntary transfer or purchase in the name of another; or
(2) Trusts arising on failure to exhaust the B interest under an express trust
When does a presumption of a RT arise in purchase money cases
Presumption of RT from Y to X mathematically equivalent to percentage of the contribution price if:
(1) X transfers purchase money to seller; and
(2) Property is put in Y’s name; and
(3) Payment is made at the time of the acquisition of the property (ie contribution to INITIAL purchase price => payment of mortgage instalments and other outgoings after the date of the purchase will not give rise to a RT)
Burden on party claiming to be B of a RT to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they supplied the consideration
When does a presumption of a RT arise in voluntary transfer of property cases
ie there is a presumption of a resulting trust from Y to X if:
(1) X transfers property to Y;
(2) No consideration is supplied; and
(3) There is no evidence of X’s intention
Applies only in the absence of evidence of X’s intentions
Presumption of advancement (ie gift)
Applies where person making voluntary transfer/providing purchase money is regarded as being under an obligation to provide for the other party
Presumption of advancement instead of a RT if:
- X is Y’s husband or fiancé
- X is Y’s father
- X is in loco parentis of Y ie taken on father’s responsibility to provide financially for the child during their infancy
Limitation - No authority to apply reverse (eg mother to child), but loco parentis been applied mother to child when mother had sole responsibility for child as a single parent
Rebutting presumptions of advancement/RT
Must prove intention of transfer
Presumption of advancement is easily rebutted (Esp when child is over 18 and financially independent)
Evidence admissible to rebut presumptions =
- Surrounding circumstances at the time of the transfer
- Acts or declarations made by ind before or at time pf the purchase or transfer
Trusts of the family home
Depends on whether (1) legal ownership is in one or both names, and (2) whether there has been any express declarations of trust
Trusts of the family home where legal ownership in both names - express decelaration of trust
=> legal title held as joint tenants => parties will have equal shares if the property is sold
TiC in equity – declaration of trust conclusive in the absence of fraud or mistake (even if financial contributions not equal)
JT in equity – B interest held in equal undivided shared and will be distributed equally on sale of their property
Trusts of the family home where legal ownership in both names - no express declaration of trust
Usual presumption = equity follows the law (unless parties prove common intention that B interests should be held differently)
Proving common intention => look at entire course of conduct between the parties
Inlc things like: Advice and discussions at the time of the purchase, Contributions to mortgage payments, whether children living at property etc
ie key = shared intentions about the ownership of the property
If nothing agreed, court will determine a fair share with regards to the whole course of dealings – mortgage contributions, council tax, utilities, repairs insurance, outgoings
Trusts of the family home where legal ownership in only one name - express declaration of trust
Need to be evidenced by signed writing (+ an be made at time of conveyance or later date)
Declaration of truts usually conclusive
BUT can be avoided when party able to demonstrate:
(1) fraud/mistake or undue influence
(2) proprietary estoppel, ie (gives rise to equity):
- assurance that C will have some interest in the property (can be by conduct)
- C relied on the rep or assurance
- In reliance on this assurance, C acted to their detriment (causal element required)
Trusts of the family home where legal ownership in only one name - no express declaration of trust
Common intention consructive trust may arise
Courts impose a CT where:
(1) Parties had a common intention (express or inferred) that C should have an interest in the property; and
(2) C acted to her detriment in reliance on that common intention
Express common intention
- Actual communication between the parties at the time of the purchase or (exceptionally) at a later date
- Excuse given by legal owner at time of purchase as to why C should not have legal title = express common intention
- Discussions must concern proprietary interests => talking about living arrangements or occupation will be insufficient
Inferred common intention
- Where it would be unconscionable for the legal owner to assert their beneficial interest in the property
- Poss from: Direct contributions to purchase price, Mortgage payments, Payment of household expenses, Substantial renovations to the property by one party
Quantifying the share - looks to parties intentions