English Equity and Trust Law - Essay Example

? English Equity and Trust Law As Helmholz1 says, there are various issues with regard to Inte E especially within the English common and property law. Trust law is especially important with regard to how a court makes a decision in a case involving disputed Intestate Estate, considering the facts of trust2. In many cases, unclear trusts established by deceased people leaves the court to use its wisdom, based on the scarce available information to determine who should get the disputed estate or how the people conflicting on the discounted Intestate Estate should share the estate. However, as Pettit3 argues, equity operates on the conscience of the owner of legal interest and so in the case of a trust; the conscience of the legal owner of the estate is required to carry out that purpose for which it was intended, or which the law obliges him or her to do. This is because English law is based on formalities which must be fulfilled in order for a transfer of trust to be considered as complete. These formalities are achieved in different processes, but all include some form of official government document which the donor of an estate must sign as an indication of the transfer of the estate. In English trust law, these formalities are considered as the absolute way to determine the absolute owner of an estate, without having to consider so many factors. The main issue with regard to the requirements of these formalities is that many property owners die before they have made a formal will and this leaves room for conflicts among the people who were related to them in different ways. While at times the court can find that there was intent by the diseased to place his or her trust to another person even if the said person is not an obvious heir to the diseased and in the interest of an express will or effectuation of transfer of interest, the law still depends a much as is possible on formalities and only considers other avenues where formalities have not been met. Even in such as the Paul v Constance [1977] 1 WLR 527 case in which the judge depended on other sources of evident to decide the case in favour of the plaintiff who was claiming property rights against the legal wife of the diseased person, the court had to gravitate towards any available formalities or the evidence of intended will to meet these formalities. The case indicates that being the natural heir to property is not enough for the court to decide in your favour. For instance, in the above case, Mrs Constance who was the defendant was the natural heir to the estate of Mr Constance’s estate because they were still legally married by the time Mr Constance died. Conversely, Mrs Paul was only a live-in partner to Mr Constance and her rights in Mr Constance’s estate were very limited or even non existence. Yet, regardless of that, the court jugged in favour Mrs Paul. This only goes to show how complicated trust law can be. How such a case goes also depends on whether the judge(s) will choose to use technicalities or not. Regardless of the nature of this case and the unexpected outcome, it is clear that the court made the decision while keeping in mind the need for formalities in completion of transfer of trust as well as equity in such cases. To look at both sides, the court had to look at the faintest of evidence for intent by Mr Constance to transfer the will, and at the same time wanted to deliver a judgement that offered equity. The intention of the case is to deliver justice with the available evidence available. In the present case, it is clear that there is some evidence that the two aunts had received from Lady Meera the intention of transfer of trust. In the first case with regard to aunt Jemima, Lady Meera had left her the papers to the shares. In the second case, she had showed Aunt Beatrix the estate. These facts are important in the case and can determine the way the judge will decide to end the case. As a result, in trying to get custody of these property which the two aunts are claming, it is necessary to prove that despite the actions of Lady Meera which the two aunts purported she had taken, such as giving the certificates and introducing aunt Beatrix to the staff of the Goldacre, were not intension of transfer of rights or trust. This can be an easy or hard task depending on a number of issues which must be considered. In the first case, what would need to be proven is that the certificates could have landed in Aunt Jemima’s hands under various circumstances which would not imply an intension by Lady Meera to transfer her rights of the property to Jemima. Jemima may not be able to prove that Lady Meera gave the certificates with the purpose of transferring the property to her. According to the English Law of Property act of 1925 section 53(1) (b), any transfer must have been made by an individual who has the mandate to transfer such property, and this must be evidenced and backed up by a written signed paper. This legislation indicates just how important formalities are in the English trust law. However, a look at the situation and the history of trust law cases can explain why this emphasis on formalities is necessary, in order to avoids confusions. Section 53(1) (c) of the same act also seem to support this and puts emphasis on the need of an express written will by an individual, or his agent, wishing to dispose off property. This section actually places mush emphasis on such a disposition of property being legally authorised through a formal document such as a will. In the present case, these issues as identified by Law of Property act of 1925 section 53(1) (b) and (c) are fundamental in. this is because neither of the two aunts meet any of these requirements as clearly outlined by Law of Property act of 1925 section 53(1) (b) and (c). Gardner v Rowe (1828) is a classic example of this kind of formalities over equity issues in trust law. In this case, an oral declaration to transfer the trust of some property was later confirmed by the original owner. However, between the times the formal declaration of the transfer of trust was done and the time the oral declaration had been done, the owner of the property had become bankrupt. This led to the plaintiff being able to prove that that the property remained the property of the original owner and could be used to pay up his debt without the intended beneficiary claiming any thing. Other court cases such as the M’Fadden v Jenkyns (1842) however have shown the court using other wisdom sources as a way to deliver justice. As such the concern in Thomas’ case is the fact that other laws such as the adverse possession law may apply4. The adverse possession law as Martin5 argues is an peculiar UK land law due to the fact that it focuses on the claimant in a land case rather than the owner of the land. In such as case, the issue of orientation is not the ownership of the land but the possession of the land. The claimant can claim the possession of the kind and may be seeking the possession of the land by the exclusion of all other interests, including the owner with the papers of ownership. In such a case, the court will not be interested with issues of who is the owner of the land, but will be more inclined to looking at establishing any evidence that the claimant of possession is fair in asking for possession. The importance of the adverse possession law in this case is the fact that Aunt Beatrix may use this route as a way to get the land. By first of all asking for the possession of the estate, it can be then be easier for her to proceed with the case and claim ownership. It is therefore necessary to look at how this can affect he case. However, even in the case that the court gives her possession rights, that does not then give her ownership rights but the ownership will still remain in the hands of the person whose name is on the official papers, which in this case is Lady Meera. The main, Inter vivos trust In English common law, and especially in English trust law, inter vivos law is governed by a number of statutory provisions found in the Law of Property Act 1925. Inter vivo is a Latin term formed by two words inter which means between and Vivos which means living. This means that an inter vivos trust is a trust that takes place between two living individuals and is implemented while the donor and the donee are still alive. Due to this fact, the English trust law requires two important provisions to have taken place. Apart from intent to transfer, the English trust law requires the transfer to have taken place within the life of the donor of such a gift. This is important in this situation because although the two aunts are claiming that the estate belonged to them, the transfer of he gifts were not done while Lady Meera was still alive and this is important in discrediting the aunts for any claim that they were given the gifts by their sister. This case is a case involving an inter vivos case, which means that the said gifts or estate were supposed to have been transferred while lady Meera was alive, just indicating that the donor (lady Meera) intended to transfer this trust to them will therefore not play a significant role. The challenge in this case would therefore be on how to convince the court on this issue. If the case goes to court, trying to convince the court that you are the rightful heir of these two estates and that the two aunts should not be given the estate will depend on whether the judges will look in the inter vivos aspect of the case or other aspects of the case. This will be critical and must be understood in detail. It is possible to predict how the court will look at the case by not only looking at the various legal provisions but by also looking at the various past cases with regard to their facts, the judgement given by the court and the reasoning used by the court6. Vander ell v Inland Revenue Commissioners In this case, the contention was on the liability of tax payments by the donor of an estate. Vandervell wished to avoid tax on his donation of part of his shares in his company. He wanted to donate some of his shares to the royal college of surgeons without having to pay tax. The Inland Revenue Commissioners contended that the donor was still liable to tax remittance on the donation since the transfer of the shares to the royal college was not explicit and therefore this mean that the estate still belonged to him. The House of Lords favoured the Inland Revenue Commissioners’ argument and decided that the donation was liable to donation. Reasoning Since the donation was not explicit and the donor could have revoked the donation when and if he wished, it was argued that the donation still belonged to him and not the recipient and in this regard, was liable to tax remittance. Analysis The Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners7, is a very important case to understand due to the fact that the house of lords decided that if a transfer has been made only orally and has not been effected in the official way, it revocable and cannot be seen as being complete. This is important in this case due to a number of reasons. The first one is the fact that the house of lords recognised that for a transfer of trust of interest to be recognised, there has to be some official procedure of transfer and secondly, that an oral declaration of intention to transfer the value of estate or part of it is and can be revocable. This case also indicates that there is a chance that implicit intention to transfer estate to another person can be revoked, even after the death of the donor. As a result, it forms firm ground on the case about the two aunts who claim that their sister had intension to transfer the trust of the relevant estates to them. The three certainties In English trust law, three certainties is a principle that is used in trust cases in order to establish whether a specific person is liable to benefit from the estate. The three certainties principle postulates that for a transfer to be liable, the there must be certainty of intention, subject matter and object. This means that there should be certainty of the fact that the individual who is the original owner of an estate was or is willing to transfer her rights to the estate must clearly indicate this. In the case at hand, the issue is that the only witnesses to this intention are the ones claiming that the donor wanted to transfer her rights to them. This leaves little credibility and can not be used as evidence that the donor was willing to transfer her rights. In this case, trying to prove that the two aunts do not have any rights to the estate to which they claim would need a proof that there is not adequate certainty of intention in this case. Conclusion The above literature shows both sides of the English Trust Laws and especially the Law of Property. It has indicates that the English Trust Laws are very dependent on formalities. The law required very formal ways of settlement and transfer of trust or property in order to avoid confusion. This has been for instance exemplified by the Law of Property act of 1925 section 53(1) (b) and (c) which outline the requirements for various formalities in transferring trust or disposing property. However, it has also been made evident that the court ca in some cases use alternative wisdom in order to resolve cases the lack of these formalities cause confusion. In this case, it dos not necessarily mean that where there is a conflict on interest in trust or property the person with the formal documentation will be the one winning the case. This has been evidenced by various cases such as the Paul v Constance [1977] and the M’Fadden v Jenkyns (1842). However, other cases such as the Gardner v Rowe(1828) have indicated how courts can follow the legal requirements for formalities to decide such cases. Bibliography Paul v Constance . No. [1977] 1 WLR 527. Court of Appeal of England and Wales. 08 July 1976. Giffard, H. Halsbury's Laws of England: Wills and Intestacy, Volume 103. (London, UK: Lexisnexis UK, 2010). Helmholz, R. The Oxford History of the Laws of England: The Canon law and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004) 78. MacKenzie, J., & Phillips, M.. Textbook on Land Law. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press , 2012). Martin, D. Modern Land Law. (London, UK: Routledge, 2012). Mitchell, Charles. Constructive and Resulting Trusts. (London, UK: Hart Publishing Limited, 2010). Robert Pearce, ?John Stevens, ?Warren Barr. The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations. (London UK: Oxford University Press, 2010). Pettit, P. Equity and the Law of Trusts. (Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press, 2012). R.R. Bowker Company. Bowker's Law Books and Serials in Print, Volume 3. (Indina: R.R. Bowker Company, 1991). Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners . No. [1967] 2 AC 291. House of Lords. 26 November 1967. Read More