Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have gotten to the end of a trusts problem question and im a little bit stumped (and i cant be bothered read over the hanbury chapter, AGAIN) so i was wondering if any of you guys could clear something up for me. basically i have to evaluate the legal effect of this term in a testamentary disposition.

    (iii) 'One of my signed Coronation Street scripts to each of my friends who is a true fan of Coronation Street.' A has 100 such scripts, of widely differing value.

    my thoughts are:

    This appears to be a gift with condition precedent. therefore the certainty rules relating to such gifts will apply.

    the question would appear to raise issues with regards certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects.

    on the subject matter point, i know the rules relating to trusts, those found in Re London wine, Hunter v Moss, Re Goldcorp:

    for a trust to apply the subject matter must be clearly identifiable, so that the obligatory equitable right may attach to it. Therefore wine in a bulk in a warehouse will fail for certainty of subject matter. Hunter v Moss suggests that if it is intangibles, such as shares or money, only the source need be identified, as in that case a trust of 50 shares out of 950 was held to be valid despite not being held in a separate account etc. Re Goldcorp applies the Re london wine reasoning to gold bullion.

    also the language must clearly identify the trust property, so that "the bulk of my estate wont be sufficiently certain to create a trust as per palmer v simmons.

    im not sure how this applies to gifts with condition precedent however. my gut would say that this is void for want of certainty of subject matter, she hasnt identified the specific property she wishes to gift, and as the scripts differ in value you cant view them as analogous with the Hunter v Moss reasoning.

    as to certainty of objects, it was shown in Re Barlows trust that gifts with conditions precedent were not subject to the same rules as Re baden no 2, and all that was required to claim was that party should prove they fell within. however the tricky bit is she doesn't say what to do with the property if it isnt exhausted, which may violate perpetuity and the facts dont precisely mirror those of Re barlow, which was an option to purchase before the paintings went to charity.

    I would greatly appreciate any help on this! thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    I have gotten to the end of a trusts problem question and im a little bit stumped (and i cant be bothered read over the hanbury chapter, AGAIN) so i was wondering if any of you guys could clear something up for me. basically i have to evaluate the legal effect of this term in a testamentary disposition.

    (iii) 'One of my signed Coronation Street scripts to each of my friends who is a true fan of Coronation Street.' A has 100 such scripts, of widely differing value.

    my thoughts are:

    This appears to be a gift with condition precedent. therefore the certainty rules relating to such gifts will apply.

    the question would appear to raise issues with regards certainty of subject matter, and certainty of objects.

    on the subject matter point, i know the rules relating to trusts, those found in Re London wine, Hunter v Moss, Re Goldcorp:

    for a trust to apply the subject matter must be clearly identifiable, so that the obligatory equitable right may attach to it. Therefore wine in a bulk in a warehouse will fail for certainty of subject matter. Hunter v Moss suggests that if it is intangibles, such as shares or money, only the source need be identified, as in that case a trust of 50 shares out of 950 was held to be valid despite not being held in a separate account etc. Re Goldcorp applies the Re london wine reasoning to gold bullion.

    also the language must clearly identify the trust property, so that "the bulk of my estate wont be sufficiently certain to create a trust as per palmer v simmons.

    im not sure how this applies to gifts with condition precedent however. my gut would say that this is void for want of certainty of subject matter, she hasnt identified the specific property she wishes to gift, and as the scripts differ in value you cant view them as analogous with the Hunter v Moss reasoning.

    as to certainty of objects, it was shown in Re Barlows trust that gifts with conditions precedent were not subject to the same rules as Re baden no 2, and all that was required to claim was that party should prove they fell within. however the tricky bit is she doesn't say what to do with the property if it isnt exhausted, which may violate perpetuity and the facts dont precisely mirror those of Re barlow, which was an option to purchase before the paintings went to charity.

    I would greatly appreciate any help on this! thanks!
    Hi,

    I think that rather than jumping straight away to say that it is gift with condition precedent, perhaps you could analyse all possibilities and then arrive at a conclusion because I am thinking it could possible be a power of appointment given to A because of the fact that the scripts have different value - thus implying that A may have to choose which to give.
    I also don't think you need to talk about segregation/Hunter v Moss as it is a testamentary disposition and not inter vivos therefore it does not apply as the executor/s would have absolute title to deal with the items. Otherwise I think your analysis of certainty of subject matter/objects would be relevant.
    You would also discuss 'friends' (several cases on this) and uncertainty regarding 'true fan'.
    (Please note I am not an equity expert - still a learner myself therefore if anyone can correct me or add to my suggestions, please do!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In 1975, unmarried couple David and Amanda bought a freehold house called Drayton Mansion together. The legal title was placed in their joint names. The purchase was financed by a mortgage loan, and the mortgage bills were regarded as a joint responsibility by the couple. They both contributed in proportion to their income, and by the time the mortgage was discharged Amanda had paid 60% of the total purchase costs, and David 40%.

    In 2008 their relationship broke down when David began seeing another woman, Melanie. Having just inherited a large sum of money from a distant relative, he was able to buy a new house, Bellville Bungalow, without the assistance of a mortgage. David and Melanie moved in after the purchase, but the legal title was put in the name of Melanie alone. At the time, David said to her ‘I would have put it in our joint names, but I don’t want Amanda to find out about this’. Melanie gave up her council flat to move in, and spent a summer refurbishing the property.

    Subsequently, Amanda also started a new relationship with a man named Nigel. He moved out of the freehold property he owned and moved into Drayton Mansion with Amanda. He did not pay any rent, but after seeing to a number of repairs around the house, Amanda told him he could “stay for good”. Nigel then sold his freehold property and invested the proceeds in the stock market.

    In late 2010 David wrote to Amanda saying “I want Drayton Mansion sold so I can get the money for my interest in the property”. However, the house was not sold and a month later they both decided suddenly to end their new relationships and get back together. David moved back to Drayton Mansion whilst Melanie continued to live in Bellville Bungalow alone. Melanie suggested that she buy out David’s interest in Bellville Bungalow, and David readily agreed. A price was decided, but before the sale went through David died unexpectedly. In his will he left all of his property to Beatrice, his sister. Beatrice is short of money and wants to realise the cash value of any land assets she has gained. Nigel continues to live in Drayton Mansion, and Amanda now wants him to leave. He has refused, saying he was promised he could stay and he has nowhere else to go.

    Explain the property rights of the surviving parties, addressing the following points specifically:

    i) The extent of Beatrice’s interests in Drayton Mansion and Bellville Bungalow, if any.
    ii) How Beatrice might seek a sale of Drayton Mansion and Bellville Bungalow, if she were found to have an interest in either property.
    iii) Whether Nigel has any claim to be able to stay at Drayton Mansion.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.