Equity: Express Trusts

Front 1

What are the 3 certainties?

Back 1

Certainty of intention, subject-matter and objects

Front 2

Re Humphrey's Estate

Back 2

Testator "wished" wife would devise house to son and remaining property to daughters. Precatory v imperative words. Court held wife took absolutely re

Front 3

Re Coulson

Back 3

Dixon J said key question is what can be gathered from will as a whole

Front 4

Re Sweeney

Back 4

Testator left to wife "subject to the express wish" - Hamilton J said he merely expressed a wish for guidance of wife as to how she should dispose of her assets upon her death

Front 5

Palmer v Simmonds

Back 5

"The bulk" of residual estate too vague

Front 6

Re Golay's Will Trusts

Back 6

Executors were to allow beneficiary to enjoy one of the testator's flats and to receive a reasonable income from other properties. Held reasonable was quantifiable, sufficiently objective

Front 7

Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd

Back 7

Clients with segregated identifiable stock could claim a trust; others who had purchased gold for future delivery could not as had not been allocated specific portion of bullion in storage

Front 8

Hunter v Moss

Back 8

Trust declared over shares in company - provided shares were of same class and in same company, no need to separate shares before declaring, all capable of satisfying trust

Front 9

Re London Wine Co Ltd

Back 9

Cases of wine, no trust could arise. Distinguish between tangible and intangible property

Front 10

What is a fixed trust?

Back 10

The extent of the beneficiaries' interests is fixed in the trust instrument. "Complete list test" - ascertained/ascertainable beneficiaries

Front 11

What is a discretionary trust?

Back 11

The trustee has a discretionary power to decide (i) who benefits and (ii) the extent to which they benefit

Front 12

IRC v Broadway Cottages

Back 12

England - whole range of objects must be ascertained/ascertainable.

Front 13

McPhail v Doulton

Back 13

HL overruled IRC. "Individual-ascertainability test" ie if it can be said w certainty that any given individual is not a member of the class

Front 14

Re Parker

Back 14

Ireland. McPhail not followed. Budd J said whole class of potential beneficiaries must be capable of ascertainment. "Complete list test"

Front 15

Re Baden's Deed Trusts (No 2)

Back 15

Class must be conceptually certain. Class comprising "relatives" was conceptually certain. Martin suggests trusts to all my relatives should be upheld and that trustees can be relied upon to act sensibly and not choose most obscure/distant relative over closer family members

Front 16

McPhail v Doulton

Back 16

Trust stated to be for all residents of Greater London was too difficult for trustees to administer. Trust must be administratively workable

Front 17

Re Manisty's Settlement

Back 17

A trust may be invalid on grounds of capriciousness. Court held that trustees could engage in sensible consideration of how power/trust was to be exercised. An absolute discretion not necessarily mean terms are capricious provided some sensible basis for exercising powers

Front 18

Milroy v Lord

Back 18

Constitution - equity will not perfect an imperfect gift in favour of a volunteer. The settlor must have done everything which according to the nature of the property was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property, in order to render a voluntary settlement valid and effectual.

Front 19

In Re Rose

Back 19

Settlor not able to do everything necessary to complete transfer because of circumstances beyond his control. Executed deed purporting to transfer shares but died before transfer registered - was he still owner upon death? CA said he had done everything in his power to divest - trust validly constituted

Front 20

Pennington v Waine

Back 20

Arden LJ said it was clear deceased had intended to make an immediate gift to nephew and it would have been unconscionable to allow her to recall it - conscience affected when she signed share transfer form

Front 21

Rule in Strong v Bird

Back 21

Defendant borrowed £1100 from stepmother and agreed to repay £100 every 3 months. Stepmother paid £200 rent every 3 months and def charged £100 less rent over 6 months. She then expressly forgave debt and began paying full rent again. She died and appointed defendant executor by her will. Residuary legatees sought to enforce £900 remaining debt. Held that 1) deceased had appointed def as executor and 2) deceased had intended to make an immediate gift to def and such intention was extant until her death. Rule: where testator has expressed intention of making a gift to one who upon his death becomes his executor, the intention containing unchanged, the executor is entitled to hold the property for his own benefit. Rationale: 1) vesting of property in executor completes imperfect gift made in lifetime and 2) intention overrules beneficiaries' equity

Front 22

In Re Wilson

Back 22

Requirement that donee is appointed as personal representative of deceased for rule in S v B to operate - same rule of transfer by operation of law applies where there is no will or will is defective so that administrators have to be appointed.

Front 23

Re Stewart

Back 23

Does not matter if donee is only executor or one of several - law sees whole of property as vesting in each

Front 24

In Re Wilson

Back 24

Deceased must intend to make an immediate gift to donee and such intention must last until death for rule in B v S to operate - rule did not apply to other properties which testator had promised to transfer during his lifetime/by his will ie in the future

Front 25

What is a donation mortis causa?

Back 25

The delivery of property to a donee in contemplation of the donor's death which is conditional on this event occurring ie gift is not complete until donor dies. There needs to be strict compliance w certain requirements because dmc usually means property will be distributed in a manner inconsistent w will and there is a lack of independent evidence of claims to support dmc

Front 26

What are the "three essential" for claim of dmc?

Back 26

Bentham v Potterton identified 3 requirements: made in contemplation of death, subject to condition that it will only become indefensible in event of donor's death, and property must be delivered to donee

Front 27

Bentham v Potterton

Back 27

HC said not clear deceased realised seriousness of condition when words of gift were spoken - only weeks after did she say she might be dying. Not established on BOP that gift made in contemplation of death. Person claiming gift must prove the dmc

Front 28

Agnew v Belfast Banking

Back 28

Dmc depends on death - revoked if owner recovers/says it is revoked/recovers dominion. Not revoked by will

Front 29

Sen v Headley

Back 29

"House is yours... Keys are in your bag... Deeds are in the steel box". CA said delivery of deeds constituted delivery of house. Delany says delivery of subject matter of dmc w intention of parting w dominion and not just mere physical possession ("safe-keeping")

Front 30

Re Mulroy

Back 30

Deceased opened cash box in presence of claimant and said "sorry I have no more to give you" but locked box and put key in his pocket - did not intend to relinquish dominion, no dmc. Personal property requires mere delivery; real property requires delivery of documentation appropriate to effect a transfer