Charitable and Non-haritable Trusts - Coursework Example

?Law: Trust IN THE MATTER OF: Re Endacott [1960] Ch. 232, Lord Evershed M Trusts In non charitable trusts, it implies that trusts are to be made for other reasons rather than for charitable trusts where in charity unlike in the statement, there may be many beneficiaries or none implying that the public can use the property. For non charity trusts, it is crucial, and a court order to have a beneficiary. To make a statement as to whether to agree with the statement or not, it is worth considering the Endacott case, where Endacott made a statement in his will that the sons would only get the factory and the house that he had. The rest of his property, which includes the North Tawton, would go the Parish Council of Devon. This is to happen if only the wife is not alive otherwise the property should go to the parish council, but the interests that the property gains go to the wife. In his statement, Endacott said that the reason he made that decision is on the bases of providing some memorial to him and his family, which was useful. The basic law indicates that all trusts whether charitable or non charitable should have people who have the benefit of the property and thus its application. According to the law, I totally agree and arguing in accordance to the ruling by the court of appeal made through Lord Evershed, that there is a failure in trying to create a trust that is beneficial to a person1. There are exceptions to the statement and to the law that purpose trusts have no validity. It is rather obvious that prohibition does not apply to powers for the purpose, but it applies only to purpose trusts. From the actual law, it is clear that when there is some level of surety that the person to settle the trust has the intentions to do so, and it is certain in relation to the estate as well as the purpose for the trust, then the trust may fail. According to the current law, there is no trust in the exercise that the court of appeal can control. Further the law indicates that, the trust should be given to persons who have the right to have the property as a default of what the initial owner’s intention for the property was2. The main reason I agree with the statement and in line with the current law is that, for the validity of a trust, the trust must be able to get supervision from the court of appeal without the interference of other people claiming the property. In this case, there is consideration of trustees’ duties and rights towards the property by the court. Thus, there is consideration as whether the trustees’ can utilize the property without interference from other parties. This is in line to the ruling made by the court of appeal in the case of Morice v. the bishop of Durham. Where the court indicates it does not control the property in the case. The court of appeal also may take control of the trust to ensure that there is respect to the intentions of the settler. Where the settler is the initial owner of the property as seen in the case of Roxburgh in Re Astor, I agree to the statement further due to the current law clause on express trust. According to the court of appeal definition for express trust, there must be certainty, formality and the making of the trust must be constitutional. For the trust to be biding, the settler must have the ability to create trust, that is. The settler must own property and hold the property he should be able to speak as well as show the intention to create the trust. The settler can then name the beneficiary as it is the requirement of the court for non-charity trusts. Thus, the trust cannot be binding if there are no beneficiaries as this is against the law for the creation of direct trusts3. The statement may not apply where the trust is discretional following a ruling by the court of appeal in the case of McPhail v. Doulton. Where the trust may have many beneficiaries rather than a few who the settler provides in his list of beneficiaries during the making of the trust, Furthermore, the trustee must be able to say for certain who the beneficiary is when they are before him. If the trustee, cannot differentiate who the beneficiaries are, then the court ruling is that the trust was not binding, and thus there are no beneficiaries at all. In a situation where there are many beneficiaries, then the statement may not be valid. The statement also underlies the fact that the trustee did not name the beneficiary. This lies in the power clause, where there is no compelling of the trustee by the court to name the beneficiaries, though the trustee should not ignore the fact that a beneficiary should exist for the trust to exist. Thus, the statement, which states that, there should be a beneficiary, does not include the fact that the trustee may not be able to state the beneficiary, where in that case the court has no control because the trustee has the powers not to name the beneficiaries if not in a position to name them. Where the powers are in application, the court cannot ascertain the beneficiaries of the trust. Following this, I tend to differ with the statement in reference to the current law. Thus, the holder of these powers is free to do wherever his wish is with the property. It is worth noting that power is discretionary and trust is obligatory as seen in the current law4. In instances where the beneficiary is the public, it is hard to determine whether the trust is non-charitable, this implies that the court has to go ahead and determine what the trustees’ intentions were. In current law, a trustee who gives some property for use by the rich cannot consider that charity rather, it is non-charity. This is because though according to the statement there are beneficiaries, the extent of trust being beneficial is not clear because the rich people though in the hospital pay for the services due to the property. This implies that the trustee enjoys the interests that come from the property. Thus, though there are beneficiaries for the trust, the trust does not arise to be non-charitable. In current law, where the beneficiaries are poor people, then this is charitable. It is worth noting that also where the beneficiary are many, that is involving the public then the trust falls under charity trust5. Though I agree with the statement, it may lack grounds due to the current law where the court of appeal rules that, though a purpose trust has no benefit to the public, it is charity trust rather than non charity. This is because; according to the statement the trust is enforceable if there is a beneficiary. In this case, the beneficiary is the person who the trustee has written in his list during the establishment of the trust. Thus, according to the statement the domestic community cannot be taken to mean the beneficiary because the trustee cannot be able to say that, people are the beneficiaries of his trust. Furthermore, the trustee cannot list all the people in the community as beneficiary. Thus, the statement seems to differ with current law as seen in the case of Lander v. Whitehead. Where the court of appeal made a ruling that the trust though it does not benefit the public, it is a charitable trust6. To make a conclusion, in the case of Endacott, the terms “some useful memorial for him and a useful purpose” means a gift. Thus, due to its useful purpose, thus the court of appeal rules it as charitable. The court of appeal or any other court does not control the trusts, thus in the case of Endacott, the court could not rule whether the wording meant it was non-charitable because its purpose shows benevolent and patriotic purposes thus hard to establish whether it is charitable or non-charitable. It is considerate to note that unless there is statutory for a certain jurisdiction, there are provisions that differentiate the non charitable purpose from the trust thus enabling the rest charity trust to carry out the purpose the trustee meant it to serve. The current law illustrates that, if the beneficiaries find the trust being a gift or gratitude then the trust is a charity trust. Though the current law tends to contradict the meaning of the statement under question, I further agree with the statement because the current law forms its bases on the statement and for almost all cases in modern law, there has to be a beneficiary in non-charity trusts as seen in the case of Monds v. Stackhouse7. Bibliography Wakeman, Austin. The law of Trusts. New York, USA: Little Brown, 2007. Taylor, George. Trust. Canada, USA: West Publishing Company, 2009. Dewar, John. Trusts Law: Text and Materials. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Haley, Michael and Lara, McMurtry. Equity and Trusts. Athens, Greece: Sweet & Maxwell press, 2009. Duddington, John. Equity and Trusts. New York, USA: Pearson Education Press, 2009. Wilshire, Gaylord. The problem of the trust. London, England: B.R. Baumgardt press, 2010. Pearce Robert. The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations. New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2006. Todd, Paul and Watt, Gary. Cases and Materials on Equity and Trusts. Rome, Italy: Oxford University Press, 2009. Mennell, Robert. Wills and trusts in a Nutshell. California, USA: university of California press, 2008. Gleason, George. Cases and text on the law of trusts. Carolina, USA: Foundation Press, 2009. Read More