Trust and Equity - Essay Example

Even if the parties mentioned the word trust when transfer the properties to another, the court still needs to look into the true intentions of the parties. For the trust to be valid, the full intentions of the parties should be clearly stated in the trust agreement (see Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884)2. The absence of a clear showing of the true intentions of the parties will negate the validity of the trust. In the case at bar, Sedwick merely told his wife that he is transferring the money to her account in case something goes wrong.

The words in case something goes wrong is so vague and there is really no clear showing what Sedwick really wants his wife to with the money. According to the case of Knight v Knight (1840)3, for a valid trust to ensue, mandatory words has to be given directing the trustee as to what to do with the properties entrusted to it. In the case at bar, since there was no clear showing as to what is the true intention of the parties involved, the bequest of the money can arguably be construed as a form of gift (see Milroy v Lord (1862)4.

Given these circumstances, the wife can assert her right over the property. On the other hand, Sedwick may still be able to recover the property by claiming that the bequest was incomplete (Jones v Locke (1865)5. According to the court in the case of Milroy v Lord (1862)6, it is necessary for the original owner of the property to perform all acts within his or her powers to divest him/herself of his/her rights over the property or money for the gift to be deemed as complete. The facts of the case show that the creation of the trust is valid.

The three requisites of the validity of a trust according to the Knight v Knight (1840)7 are fulfilled. Note that the intention of the parties is clear (Midland Bank v Wyatte (1995)8, the subject matter of the trust is well established (Palmer v Simmonds (1854)9; Boyce v Boyce (1849)10 and the objects of the trust can be clearly determined (Morice v