Week Seven QUESTION ONE Legal Question: Has she severed the JT?

JT? To determine whether or not it has been severed we look at whether it has been severed? We need to look at requirements at law: - s 41 of RPA need to register the transfer - Not assigned at law because it hasnt been registered - Torrens is a system of title by registration Breskar v Wall. Has it been assigned in equity? - Apply the rule in Milroy v Lord .( two limbs) (steps performed that only the assignor can do what has she not done that she alone could do, - What do you have to do? Execute a memorandum of transfer, YES she did Need to have access to CT , Ross needs to have the CT) Despite the letter of authority to the solicitor was there anything else she could do? No, because solicitor has the CT. has she done everything, yes ! Transfer needs to be registered, but it can be done by anyone. Therefore there is nothing else she could have done to facilitate the transfer. - Has the assignor done everything necessary ? Corin v Patton - Yes , She has done all that she could do. - Costin v Costin - No assignment because she hasnt satisfied the second limb of Milroy v Lord - No assignment at equity !!!!!!!!!! QUESTION TWO First question we need to answer. Is whether the oral declaration effective? Have the requirement of Declaration of Trust been met? Cannot declare a trust at law, (s 23(c) 1 (c) - no writing requirement , no subsisting equitable interest) so we must turn to equity. S 23 c 1 a is caught by the land. However is a declaration of trust a disposition ? Yes, it is- an equitable interest has been created in the declaration of trust. LAND: Who gets greenacre , because the oral declration was ineffective, the land remains with Janine. ( fails on the requirement of writing because the declaration of trust was never done in writing by the transferor) What about the shares ? - Janine held the whole legal title, and at the time of the transfer there was no subsistence of an equitable interest ( s 23 c 1 c ). - There was no transfer of a subsisting equitable interest, when Janine declared it, she created an equitable interest. Therefore, this was not a transfer of a subsisting equitable interest, it was the creation of an equitable interest therefore, writing was not necessary.

We have a direction by the beneficiary (Eva) directing her trustee (Margo ) to deal with the shares? Does this need to be in writing, YES , look at Vandervall v IRC. Look at she says I want to transfer my shares to Margo analayse these words, does she want to transfer her legal and equitable interest? Need to interpret the words used in the direction. This is very likely a Vandervall Case. Why was the transfer of shares effective in the Vandervall case why did not this get caught as a transfer of a subsisting equitable interest , that would have required writing , this stamp duty would have been paid) WHY? Because it was the transfer of a legal estate. V was wholly and entirely capable as the sole beneficiary ( If V released to T (trust) or transferred to RCS , under s 7 CA, it would have been caught and thus required writing under s 23 c 1 c . Livingston Case when you own the property outright there is no subsisting equitable interest. Because there is no separate legal or equitable. You own the entire thing. If Eva owned wholly, which the facts suggest, she is fully entitled and could direct the trustee to transfer all of her interests in the share. We have come to the conclusion that writing is not required under the application of the VANDERVALL CASE Answer: YES- Eva could transfer her interest in the shares to Margo !!!!

QUESTION THREE What has mark done? He wanted to assign royalties. Has there been an effective assignment? Holroyd and Marshall Situation and GRAYS case ( caught by grays case) It is future property, because the royalties have yet to come into existence. Requirements at law for future property? NONE Assignment of future property at equity? - Valuable consideration? Do we have it, yes ! - If yes then thatmeans Kelly has an equitable interterst. Equity will assign once it comes into existence. Now that the property has come into existence, So equity will fix a trust by rendering Mark as a trustee for Kelly. Kelly then directs Mark ( trustee) to hold his (kellys) interest in the $30,000 on trust for his nephew Jack. Does this need to be in writing? - S 23 1 c 1 c is this a transfer of a subsisting equitable interest? - Trust is presently exisiting so it is a transfer of a subsistent existing equitable interest, therefore needs to be in writing.

Week Nine QUESTION THREE Who are possible contestants for damages given that Y is dead? Antonin, the Family trust ( trustee is max) Issue: Is the money held on trust or does it belong to Antonin? Has the money (verdict) been assigned to max? Yes, what as to be done for it to be assigned ? Go through shanes checklist. Verdict is a debt. Can you assign a debt? Yes.. how do you assign a debt chose in action CA act s 12 . there is writing which we have is there an absolute assignment, yes why? Its the full $250 K (not part) , signed by the person to be chaged ( yes we have that) . Has notice been given to the debtor NO. NO ASSIGNMENT AT LAW, Can be assigned at equity? No need for notice, look at Milroy and Lord -and Cottin v Patton . What do u need to assign at equity -- have the rules in Milroy and lord been satisfied, has the assignor done everything necessary to be done Does notice have to be given to the debtor? no notice--has the things need to be done, he has done all that is neccessart that could be done by him to complete the assignment, notice can be given by the assignee so YES ASSIGNED AT EQUITY .. Yes we have a trust !!!!!! Who has claim to the house? Is paul a trustee.. Has it be assigned at law ? What needs to be done at law registration CA. or deed of conveyance ( old system and TT) irrespective of what the property is , it has not been assigned at law. Assigened at equity? No- no deed of conveyance or memorandum transfer comes back to Milroy v Lloyd Is there nonetheless a trust? (look at case in supplementary materials) A constituted a trust of the promise- not property.. but promise can be enforced. A promises to B which is paual that they wukk transfer property and as paul is transferor ( he is a volunteer) he cant get equitable rememedies such as part or specific performance, can get damages under common law and those damages he can get because the common law does not require to provide any consideration as he has entered into a voluntary deed ( enforceable agreemen/contract). C beneficiary under trust and is substantial

The house would go to Antonin , but estate has to be pay damages, trust of the damages recovered which would approximate to the value of the house ( paul)

QUESTION ONE Issue: Was whether there was a secret trust? A full or half secret . Does the will indicate a trust or notclearly this will does, so its a half secret Who will be holding on trust? Bobby who is holding on trust for Wendy Fails as an express trust? It is a half secret trust. What are requirements: - Need 3 Certainties: 1. Intention- clear because its in the will 2. Communication of intention: half secret trust has to communicate before the day of the will Legderwood case Young changed the law in relation to trust . Need to communicate the terms of the trust.. YOU MUST COMMUNICATE THE TERMS OF THE TRUST !!!!! (for whom) Bobby must be told , if he gives the envelope and is simply found, there is no communication --- trustee knows of it and has the details of it and has some means of control. If this was a trust that arose from the will Cannot have a beneficiary as a witness to the will BUT the secret trust here does not arise under the will, it arises with because of the secret trust prinicples.. so the fact that she was a witness does not disentitle to her, so that when does, it passed onto her heir.

Week 11 Resulting trusts Question ONE House: Presumption of resulting trust arises Any evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement? No not really Conclusion: In 2/3 result back to Jack which would go back beneficiary in his will which is Lucy 1/3 result remains with Zac. Money: Legal Title: is with Zac and Jack Equitable: Presumption of Resulting trust that Zac Holds money on trust for Zac. Look at Russel & Scott: Presumption of Advancement applies ( parent to child intends to pass on a beneficial interest) Evidence of what was said or done or circums: o what was said I want the money to go to you Zac ends up with money russel and scott confirms (although facts differ) If notevidence to the contrary the presumptions apply. Zac during Jacks lifetime holds the money on trust for life on but on survivorship principles Zac would get them