809594
Description
Flashcards by cadhla_corrigan, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by cadhla_corrigan
over 10 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| s53(1)(b) LPA 1925- Formalities | A declaration of trust over land must be proved in writing signed by the trustee them self. |
| Rochefoucauld v Boustead- Formalities | Defendant orally agreed to hold the land on trust for claimant. Rochefoucauld went bust and trustees refused to recognise his interest in the land as it was not written down formally. Held, the need for formalities were disapplied to avoid fraud. Court will not allow a lack of formality (or statute) to cause a fraud by technicality. Equity does not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. |
| S53(2) LPA 1925- Formalities | Formalities are not required for resulting and constructive trusts. |
| Bannister v Bannister- Formalities | Ms Bannister inherited two cottages when her husband died, including the one where she lived. She transferred them to her brother and they orally agreed she would remain rent free for life, he later tried to kick her out. Held, if an express trust is being formed there must be formalities. Therefore if there are no formalities the trust must be a constructive trust. |
| Hodgson v Marks- Formalities | Hodgson transferred her freehold to her lodger after being widowed. He registered himself, and sold it to Marks. Hodgson found out and claimed a declaration that Marks should transfer his freehold to her. There was held to be a resulting trust, statute should not be used as an instrument of fraud. |
| s53(1)(c) LPA 1925- Formalities | transfer of a subsisting equitable interest must be in writing signed by transferor or their agent. |
| Grey v IRC- Formalities | Grey wanted to benefit his grandchildren with shares, he created a trust under which he was a beneficiary. Later, Grey orally directed that his trustees hold his beneficial interest on trust for his grandchildren. The oral direction was held to be a disposition within s53(1)(c) LPA 1925. Disposition= beneficial interest in himself becoming invested in others. |
| Re Danish Bacon Company- Formalities | settlor changed the beneficiary under a pension scheme by letter but did not sign the letter himself. Although there could not be a beneficiary under a pension scheme fund, it was held that, the original writing and the amended writing can be read together. Under s53(1)(c) formalities can be satisfied by connecting a number of documents. |
| Vandervell v IRC- Formalities | Vandervell transferred his equitable and legal title of shares in a company through a bare trust in the bank to the Royal College for Surgeons. because he retained the option to repurchase the shares, still had an equitable interest in the shares. s53 does not impose formality requirements upon the transfer of legal title but there must be some form of writing if equitable title is to be transferred, which was not done. |
| Vandervell Trusts (no2)- Formalities | Vandervell transferred his shares over to a trust company and instructed the tax company to repurchase shares in his company. His equitable interest in the shares had disappeared because he had failed to identify the new beneficiary leaving an "equitable void" and creating an automatic resulting trust. Automatic resulting trusts: do not depend on the intention of parties but arise as an automatic consequence of the transferor’s failure to dispose of the entirety of the beneficial interest. Presumed resulting trusts: based on the presumed intention of the transfer of property. Arises because there is a rebuttable presumption of trust based on inferred intention. |
| Oughtred v IRC- Formalities | Shares in a trust fund were held for O for life and the remainder interest is held by her son. O agreed to transfer some other shares to her son and he agreed to release his remaining interest of the trust fund to her. There was no document transferring the son’s interest to Mrs O and it was argued that no stamp duty was payable. However, the equitable interest had already been transferred through the previous oral agreement, and so the son's interest was protected under a constructive trust. Under s53(2) there are no formality requirements for a constructive trust to be formed. |
| Neville v Wilson- Formalities | Neville held an equitable interest in a company which had fallen into liquidation, the shares in a sub-company were divided between all shareholders. Held, where the owner of a beneficial interest wishes to transfer their beneficial interest to a 3rd party by way of a contract this transfer should be subject to s53(1)(c). However, each shareholder was a constructive trustee for the other shareholders. This means that s53(2) LPA 1925 displaced the formality requirements in s53(1)(c). |
| Grainge v Wilberforce- Formalities | Where a beneficiary declares he is holding the property on behalf of another, this would be the creation of a sub-trust and not subject to specific formalities. However, a sub-trust will only be valid if the trustee-beneficiary has active duties and obligations to perform. |
| Re Lashmer- Formalities | if A holds a trust for B and B declares a bare sub-trust for C, if B has no active duties he ‘drops out’ of the picture and the original trustee (A) would hold the property on trust directly for C. This would be equivalent to an express assignment of the beneficial interest and so will amount to a ‘dispostion’ under s53(1)(c) ie. a subsisting equitable interest. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.