Some help needed on formalities and constitution of trusts

Hi everyone!

I'm having some trouble with getting my head around this topic.

Question 1: I'm not exactly sure what B. Green in his article on Vandervell and Grey is saying (I cannot access the article online so I only have recourse to my rather confusing notes). Does he mean that Vandervell should have been required to comply with formalities in the same way as Grey was, or is he saying that Grey should not have been required to comply with formalities, in the same way and Vandervell wasn't? I'm having some difficulty in following his argument.

Question 2: Where "T holds shares on bare trust for A. A directs T to hold those shares on bare trust for B instead" - can this be anything but a Grey scenario?

Question 3: "T holds shares on bare trust for J. J instructs T to transfer those shares to T2, to be held on trust for B". I would have thought that this is a Grey scenario, but from what someone told me, this could also amount to a Vandervell situations, and thus I should discuss both cases. However, I can't see how this could be a mix of both cases.

Question 4: "Z was the sole beneficiary under Trust 1, which consisted of 100 000. Z instructed her trustee, T, orally to transfer the money to D. T was also a trustee over a different trust, Trust 2, which held some property in favour of D as a sole beneficiary. T was confused, so he asked Z whether she wanted him to hold the 100 000 on the terms of Trust 1, or if he should transfer absolute title to D. Z said that she wanted him to hold the money on the terms of Trust 2". My understanding is that if Z had wanted him to hold the property on the same terms for D, this would be a Grey situation so that the oral transfer would be ineffective. If she had wanted him to transfer the money outright to D, then this would have been a Vandervell scenario so that the oral transfer would have been effective. But where she tells him to hold on the terms of Trust 2 instead, does this amount to a disposition under Grey? Or is this also a case where the border between Vandervell and Grey is not so clear cut?

Question 5: "By a covenant made in 2002, A promised to transfer to B (a) 100 000 to be held on discretionary trust for my children; (b) My 100 shares in X Ltd to be held on trust for C; (c) If I win anything on the lottery next week, the first 1000 of the winnings to be held on trust for D. Angus won on the lottery, but kept the money [This is a covenant to settle future property, which only would have been enforceable if D could point to that the benefit of the covenant was held on trust for him. In my view the words do not indicate that it was held on trust for him - am I correct?]. None of the transfers were effected, although the day after executing the covenant, A but his X Ltd share certificates and signed transfer documents in an envelope and posted them to Betty. Betty put them in a drawer and forgot about them [Does this concern Re Rose and Pennington only? How does that relate to the fact that there is a covenant?]. In 2005, A rewrote his will to leave "everything I own to P" and naming B as sole executor [what is the effect of B being named sole executor? Should I discuss the rule in Strong v Bird?].

I understand that these are quite a few questions, but I have really given it a lot of thought, and I just can't get my head around them. I would really appreciate if someone could help me :smile:

Some help needed on formalities and constitution of trusts

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you