anyone doing equity or might have a question similar to this thought it might be useful to get some heads together and discuss our seen question in the E&T seen question this year, any contributions are appreciated;
Eric was a rich and eccentric bachelor who died recently. He drafted his own will which contained the following dispositions:
my Birmingham house to my sister Fiona absolutely in the hope that she will allow her daughters to live there for as long as they shall live or until they marry;
£1,000 to each of my dear relatives;
£10,000 for the maintenance of my horse, Dapple, for the rest of her (Dapple’s) life;
£10,000 to my trustees to be distributed amongst such eminent literary scholars as they see fit; any dispute as to who falls within the class of beneficiaries shall be resolved conclusively by my trustees;
The remainder of my estate to be distributed by my trustees amongst my friends, but if they prefer, my trustees may apply it for the maintenance of my tombstone.
Advise the trustees.
Equity and Trusts seen question, any help/guidance welcomed! Watch
- Thread Starter
- 18-04-2013 17:23
- 20-04-2013 22:45
well isnt that the question Meryl Thomas wrote for BCU students?
u talk about three certainties and beneficiary principle!!
plus arent u leaving it really late to write up the pre-seen?
Last edited by babybeauty_ful; 20-04-2013 at 22:46.
- 22-04-2013 03:10
First you should talk about the construction of a trust, and the certainties. There are three, object (beneficiary), subject matter, and intention. I think for the first point the object and subject are clear, but does the wording set out a trust? see Hart v Tribe and Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry.
The second point is about the object, what is a relative? Who counts? Basically it has to be a defined group, with boundaries, 'class ascertainable'. See IRC v Broadway Cottages and McPhail v Doulton (Re Badens WT).
You can't usually have a trust for a non human beneficiary, this is because there is no one to make sure that the trustees are doing their job properly basically. However there are exceptions to this (aren't there always?) and tombstones are one of them (Re Hooper ). Another exception is for animals, the case is Pettingall v Petingall (1842) and is actually about horses. This all makes up the beneficiary principle.
The 4th point is about a discretionary trust, where the trustee can decide if a given person (or 'postulant') is able to benefit.
I am not quite sure about the 5th point. I guess I have some revision of my own to do!
I hope this has helped a bit