Intention of Life Interest

Intention of Life Interest1. (a)The life relate of Parwinder which on the scrape appears to be a vested, immediate and limited care is coupled with a remainder hobby for their daughters.In this instance, there is a problem with proof of intention. Although technical delivery are not necessary,1 problems arise when precatory words more than(prenominal) as in safe confidence and pass on compliance are used in this training.The wording of this provision is very like to the wording of other provision featuring in Comiskey2 which stated in full confidence that at her death she result devise it between nieces as she might see fit. Therefore, side by side(p) this judgment it is likely that the motor hotelrooms would construe from her words an intention to leave her domain to her husband with a collapse everywhere of the remaining billet to be shared between her daughters according to his will and otherwise equally. However, if the tourist court decides that intentio n cannot be derived from this provision, Parwinder will withdraw the spot beneficially and there is a resulting depose.3 In this instance Parwinder will be appointed perpetrateee of the country thus, he can be compelled to transmit out(p) the trust. Should Parwinder become unable to allocate shares to his daughters the court will sound as trustee and distribute the estate if all certainties are rig to be sensible.If Parwinder is held to be a trustee, he moldiness carry out the distribution of the estate as a trust is obligatory. Therefore, he must make a provision in his will allocating the distribution of the estate or else he must create an express trust make sure he includes valid certainties and follows the beneficiary principle inter vivos.This provision may also constitute a trust in conjunctive with a power of appointment. According to Hanbury Martin, when a husband gives his estate to his leave for her life, and after her death to their churlren but allows the wife to decide the shares for separately child it is a valid power to appoint using her absolute courtesy with a gift in default of equal shares 4 Therefore, a peculiar(a) power exists whereby Parwinder must distribute the estate to a specified breakify of appointees5 however, he is under no obligation to carry out his profession or even need it as an obligation.6(b)Firstly, this provision may dissect for lack of certainty of subject matter in that the size of each beneficial interest is not expressly declared.7 However, the court may con that the settlor has provided an effective method of determining the size of the gift therefore the court will apply its assumption in order to prevent the gift from failing.8 Should the courts be unable to determine any certainty of size of the beneficial interest the provision will become a resulting trust for the settlors estate.Assuming the share size may be determined by some means, it would appear that 200,000 has been make over int o a trust held by the trustees of the estate. However, the obligation to distribute the money to the first 100 applicants must be clarified as a discretionary trust or a power of appointment. According to Hanbury Martin it appears that the trustees who hold a trust for the benefit of such members of a class of beneficiaries as the trustees shall in their absolute discretion call for9, are in fact the trustees of a discretionary trust.The first sine qua non would and then be to ascertain if there is certainty of objects using the tryout encouraged by the House of ecclesiastics, the Given Postulant Test.10 The test requires the trustees to ask potentiometer it be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class?11Using this test it is valid to say that any postulant who has written in response to the advertisement in the Oxford Gazette and who cook made a moral claim for a share will have to be considered a member of the class of beneficiaries. A slight problem arises if in response to the advertisement the following day 100+ letters are received making it hopeless for the trustees to determine who the first 100 beneficiaries are as is clearly put across in the provision. This would result in administrative unworkability and the trust would become vacate and revert back to the settlors estate.(c)The wording of the provision would be construed to let down a fiduciary business on the trustees and thus, produce an express trust. This is callable to all certainties being very explicit and straightforward. Although Charles is in a syncope and unlikely to recover, the trustees are still bound under the terms of the trust to distribute property to Charles according to the declaration of trust. Overall, the trustees are under a general duty to act even-handedly and defend equality between the beneficiaries12 peculiarly in the context of successive interests.The trustees still maintain the ratified human activity of the cars and Charles and the Oxford Motor Museum enjoy merely an equitable and beneficial interest. Therefore, it is possible for the Trustees to maintain the legal epithet to the cars and give the entire collection of cars to the Museum on trust as they will not automatically acquire the legal title to the cars. Should Charles die his equitable interest in one of the cars will abide by him and become part of his estate, however, if he were to recover he would still have an equitable interest in one of the cars which he could then take advantage of. Once he or a beneficiary of his estate has chosen a car the legal title of the car will be transferred to them through the appropriate procedure and the trustees duty to Charles will be fulfilled and the trust will end. The trustees will then hold the remaining cars on trust for the Museum.The final option ready(prenominal) to the trustees is to make an application to the Court for Directions. As Charles is still living, he has an good c laim on one of the vintage cars therefore, if the trustees apply to the Court for counsel and follow any subsequent strikeions of the court they will be protected.13 This work out has come into effect to allow difficulties in administration of the trust to be heard by the Court and alleviate the risk of making decisions upon a false premise.142.One of the main problems in the received legality adjoin interests in the family home is in regards to the some time archaic nature of the law in respect to the more level field that man and muliebrity now work and support themselves through their careers. Pettitt vPettitt15 made clear that a women housework, childcare and contributions towards expenses do not equate to contribution towards the purchase value therefore, unless the wife demands the house to be conveyed to the spouses jointly, she may find she has no interest in the house upon dissolution of her marriage, however, the right to invoke discretionary powers of the court to distribute the property is still an option she has upon divorce.The main problem with the current law today is the lack of statutory power a court has when dealing with cohabiting couples who share a family home. Couples may often live unneurotic for years and have children and mutually contribute to the house via renovation, expenses and upkeep, however, often times the house is registered to one of the individuals only. However, a non-legal co- possessor may have an equitable interest resulting in a constructive trust even where a direct financial contribution has not been made.16A constructive trust is another solution to this problem whereby the courts will consider contributions made to the mortgage defrayal by each party, refurbishment the house as this contributed to the maintenance and requisite upkeep. This remedy comes into effect if one party has acted to his detriment in trustingness on the self-reliance that he held a beneficial interest.17Lastly, and in around c ases preferable is the remedy of proprietary estoppel or when the Courts protect the expectations of the non-owner and may destine the non-owner as much as a full ownership interest in the land if justice demands18. The essential elements of proprietary estoppel exist where the legal owner of the property has encouraged a third party to swear that he has or will in the future obtain rights in respect of the property and the third party has acted in reliance of this assurance to his detriment.19 This is the most just remedy available as it will consider mere oral declarations such as the house is as much yours as mine or we share everything 50-50 as an assurance and the non-legal owner is likely to be granted an equitable interest in the property upon dissolution of the family home based on the amount of contribution made over the years of communal living.BIBLIOGRAPHYPEARCE, R AND STEVENS, J. (2002) The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations tertiary Edition capital of the United Kingdom LexisNexis Butterworths Tolley.PENNER, J.E. (2001) Mozley and Whitleys Law Dictionary twelfth Edition London Butterworths.MARTIN, J.E. (2001) Hanbury Martin Modern Equity 16th Edition London Sweet Maxwell Ltd.Footnotes1 Paul v Constance 1977 1 W.L.R. 5272 Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury 1905 A.C. 843 Watson v. Holland 1985 1 All E.R. 290.4 Martin (2001) rascal 173.5 Re Gestetner 1953 Ch. 672.6 Martin (2001) rogue 1747 Boyce v Boyce (1849) 16 Sim 476.8 Re Golay 1965 1 W.L.R. 9699 Martin (2001) page 175.10 Re Gulbenkiens Settlements 1970 AC 50811 Ibid per Lord Wilberforce 1971 AC 424 at pages 454-6.12 Martin (2001) page 553.13 Re Londonderrys Settlement 1965 Ch. 918.14 Martin (2001) page 550.15 1970 AC 777.16 Lloyds Bank v Rossett 1991 1 AC 107.17 Ibid at page 536.18 Penner (2001), page 281.19 Gillies v Keogh 1989 2 NZLR 327 at page 346 per Richardson J.