Summary
The validity of Adrian and Janets will requires examining the three certainties in trust law: intention, subject matter, and objects. The phrase we wish may indicate a precatory intention, potentially invalidating the trust for the Manchester properties, as seen in Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry. The subject matter is sufficiently certain, but Titos absence complicates the selection process for country homes. Beneficiaries are identifiable, satisfying the certainty of objects. The vintage cars proceeds distribution may be a discretionary trust, passing the is or is not test from McPhail v Doulton. Compliance with the Wills Act 1837 is necessary for the testamentary trusts validity. The rule in Strong v Bird is less relevant due to clear distribution instructions.Full Conversation
Adrian and his wife Janet run a construction business called Drake & Co Ltd. They own various listed commercial properties including a list of country homes. In their will, it is said that 'we wish' that the three commercial properties they own in Manchester to be passed on to the 'Rasputinians' a small and established Jamaican community living in Bristol County. They also wanted two of their country homes to be given away to their nephews George and Tito and the remaining to their children. These houses were to be selected first by the nephews, but Tito has been missing for a long time. The couple also own a number of vintage cars (listed). They wanted the vintage cars to be sold and the proceeds to be distributed, with their executors being given the power to select amongst their * sons, * daughters and their (Adrians' and Janets') own siblings. *. Both the parents have now expired, and the children have approached you for advice on the will made by their parents and want to know about the validity of the dispositions in the will. answer this question in relation to equity and trust in law also remember Remember Identify the legal issues Explain the relevant law with reference to relevant cases and authorities Apply the law to the facts of the problem Conclusion - Provide a justified Conclusion
Talk about certainty of subject matter, the three certainties of intention, certainty of subjects matter - fixed trusts, discretionary trusts, constitution AND PLEASE GIVE RELEVANT LAW CASES - EXPLAIN PROPERLY IN ESSAY FORM WITHOUT SUBHEADINGS GIVE RELEVANT CASE LAW AND STATUES ALSO GIVE REFERENCE, FOOTNOTES, BIBLIOGRAPHY
To provide a comprehensive analysis of the validity of the dispositions in Adrian and Janet's will, we must consider the principles of equity and trust law, focusing on the three certainties (intention, subject matter, and objects), as well as other relevant doctrines such as secret trusts and proprietary estoppel.
The first issue concerns the certainty of intention. A valid trust requires the settlor to have demonstrated a clear intention to create a trust. In this case, the phrase 'we wish' regarding the commercial properties in Manchester may be problematic, as it suggests a precatory rather than a mandatory intention. This was highlighted in Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (*) * Ch D *, where precatory words were found insufficient to create a trust. Therefore, the intention to pass the properties to the Rasputinians may be deemed invalid.
Regarding the certainty of subject matter, it is crucial that the property to be held on trust is clearly defined. The will specifies 'three commercial properties in Manchester' and 'two country homes', which appears sufficiently certain. This aligns with the principle established in Re Golay's Will Trusts [*] * WLR *, where the subject matter was deemed sufficiently certain. However,the selection process for the country homes raises an issue due to Tito's absence. The method of selection must be clarified to ensure the trust's validity.
The certainty of objects requires that the beneficiaries of the trust be clearly identifiable. The Rasputinians, George, and Tito are identifiable groups and individuals, satisfying this requirement. However, the vintage cars' proceeds distribution to a potentially wide and undefined group (executors' discretion among sons, daughters, and siblings) could fall under a discretionary trust. Discretionary trusts must pass the 'is or is not' test from McPhail v Doulton [*] AC *, ensuring that it is possible to say whether any given individual is a member of the class. This appears to be satisfied here.
The will also involves a testamentary trust, which must comply with the Wills Act *, requiring the will to be in writing and witnessed by two individuals. Assuming these formalities were met, the testamentary trust is valid.
The rule in Strong v Bird (*) LR * Eq * could apply if any incomplete gifts were intended to be perfected by the executors. However, this rule is less relevant here as the will provides clear instructions for the distribution.
Proprietary est
TRY ME!
Start a new chat