#17290 - Constitution Of A Trust - GDL Equity and Trusts

Three ways of transferring property:

• 1) An absolute gift (complete constitution is necessary)

  • Milroy v Lord (1862) - Settlor attempted to create trust of shares, but only handed over the share certificates, failed to complete share transfer certificate, failed to register this transfer. Held no trust; equity will not perfect an imperfect gift.

• 2) Transfer of legal title for trustee to hold on trust for a beneficiary (complete constitution is necessary)

• 3) Self-declaration of trust, settlor retains legal title holding it on trust for a beneficiary (legal title does not move so complete constitution is not necessary but intention must be clear)

  • Jones v Lock (1865) – husband puts 900 cheque in safe for baby after failing to bring it any presents. Intention to give to baby not clear (more likely just to end argument), therefore no self-declaration.

  • Paul v Constance [1977] - Cash in the bank account was used for bingo winnings of Claimant and her deceased partner, used this money to pay for joint holidays etc. Deemed held on trust, intention was clear from the treatment of the account.

If the settlor attempts one mode of transfer and fails in this method, then the court will not help out and construe it as a different type of transfer: This is in part due to the onerous burden of trusteeship

Rules for transferring different types of property:

• Freehold Land must be by registered deed (s.52(1) LPA 1925)

• Leasehold Land must be by deed (s.52(1) LPA 1925), which must be registered if >7years.

• Chattels (goods) must be transferred by deed of gift or by actual delivery (Re Cole) with unequivocal intention (Glaister-Carlisle)

• Shares under s.1 Stock Transfer Act 1963 require a signed stock transfer form to be sent to the company’s registrar with relevant share certificates who then update the share register of the company

• Debts and other choses in action (including rights under bank accounts) are transferred by writing, complying with s136 LPA 1925.

• Equitable interests must be in writing and signed under s.53(1)(c) LPA 1925.

If the trust is completely constituted – it cannot be revoked - Re Bowden (1936)

The strict approach:

• Under Milroy v Lord (1862 above) the transfer had to be complete and exact

  • If the final stage is not reached, the gift is not perfect and Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift and Equity will not assist a volunteer

• Re Fry [1946] - Settlor was abroad during the war and wished to transfer shares for the benefit of the son. In order to do so, he was required to gain consent from the treasury. This was given but before it formally arrived settlor died.

  • Held trust not completely constituted therefore failed.

• In favour of strict approach:

  • Predictable & certain

  • Adheres to the application of equitable maxims

  • Consistent and respect rights of other parties

• In favour of a more relaxed approach:

  • Strict application may give rise to unconscionable conduct

  • This can come accidentally, if the settlor dies before the process is completed – no fault

  • Harsh prevention of settlor’s intentions

  • In other areas of law, changing ones mind on something that is not legally binding is not unconscionable

Exception 1: The Rule in Re Rose (nb two cases of same name, entirely coincidental)

• Re Rose [1949] – First instance decision. The testator handed a transfer of the relevant shares to the donee, Mr Hook, together with the relevant certificates. The transfer had not been registered by the date of his death.Under strict rules this was invalid and property should have been distributed on intestacy rules.

  • Held that Court: transfer was completed in the lifetime, even though the formalities were not fully complied with, settlor had done everything in his power to divest himself of his legal title.

  • ‘Equity looks as done on what ought to be done’

• Re Rose [1952] – Precedential CA decision. Stock transfer form completed and sent to the company to be registered. The company failed to register this for more than three months.

  • Tax liability depended on whether transfer was effective from date of registration or date the form was sent to company.

  • Held transfer deemed completed at the moment the transferor had done all that he could have done. Would be unconscionable to change mind.

• Problems:

  • What makes a change of mind unconscionable?

  • Interferes with director’s rights to refuse transfer.

• Mascall v Mascall (1985) – father wished to transfer land to his son. Made and gave deed and certificate of land. Father changed his mind before son had registered transfer with HM Land Registry.

  • Lawton LJ and Browne-Wilkinson LJ: the property belonged to the son in equity, and was held on trust for the son by the father, because the father had done everything in his power to make the transfer effective.

• Choithram v Pagarani [2001] - donor declared intention to make a gift on trust to a charity. Failed to fully constitute trust before he died. Called all the trustees, and friends and family and said that he “gave all his wealth to the foundation”

  • Lord Browne Wilkinson: although equity will not assist a volunteer, it will not strike officiously to defeat a gift

  • Privy Council upheld gift as donor was one of the trustees of the charity anyway, therefore one of the charity’s trustees already had the property vested in him, therefore a self-declaration of trust not requiring full constitution.

• Pennington v. Wayne [2002] - Aunt wished to benefit her nephew with shares. Asked Pennington to handle the paperwork. Failed to send it to the company as required so shares transfer was not registered.

  • As her agent, anything Pennington does or doesn’t do is attributed directly to the principle. Therefore, settlor had failed to irrevocably transfer ownership. But in reliance of this transfer the transferee had accepted the position as a director of the company, taking up a fiduciary office.

  • Arden LJ: “a donor will not be permitted to change his or her mind if it would be unconscionable in the eyes of equity for her to do so”

    • Heavily criticised for making the reference unconscionability

  • High water mark of relaxation of strict rules of constitution. Confined to its own facts.

  • Some attempt to explain with reference to proprietary estopell however there had been no detriment.

• Zeital v Kaye [2010] – held that Pennington was confined to its facts. An imperfect transfer of shares in a company failed as the transferor was held to have not irrevocably transferred the property.

• Curtis v Pulbrook [2011] defined current position: trust will be completely constituted when the settlor has done everything in his power to divest himself of the property.

Exception 2: The Rule of Fortuitous Vesting: Strong v Bird (1874)

• Failure to perfect the intended transferee's title may be cured if they later happen to obtain the legal title.

  • Typically, this involves the intended transferee obtaining legal title upon the death of the transferor (i.e. as their personal representative).

• Strong v Bird (1874) – D borrowed money from his stepmother. She forgave the debt and died soon after. D was executor so the right to call in the debt vested with D. As a matter of law, an oral release of debt is ineffective and thus Bird still owed her the money.

  • Held that there was clear evidence of stepmother’s unchanged intention to forgive the debt, in particular by his appointment as executor.

• Three requirements:

  • Donor intended to make an immediate gift (Re Freeland [1952] – continued use of car after donation showed it was not immediate)

  • This intention did not change (Re Gonin [1979])

  • The Donor acquires the title as the personal representative of the settlor.

• In Re Ralli’s WT [1964] this was extended to apply to trusts y analogy. The trust would become constituted if the trust property came into the trustee’s hands in any legitimate way.

  • Buckley J: ‘he is at law the owner of the fund and the means by which he became so have no effect on the quality of his legal ownership’

  • Many have criticised this as an unjustified extension of the rule in Strong v Bird.

  • Re Brook’s WT [1939] – had already rejected this argument in relation to a covenant to relating to future property (thereby also distinguishable, but J was not directed to this case).

• Re Stewart [1908] – rule extended to gifts as well.

Exception 3: Donatio Mortis Causa

• A so called ‘death bed’ gift.

• Cain v Moon [1896] – sets out three conditions:

  • 1) The gift must be made in the contemplation of death.

  • 2) The gift must be conditional upon death

  • 3) There must be an actual or constructive delivery of the property.

    • The donor must part with ‘dominion’ (control) of the property by handing it, or something which represents title (not simply possession) to the donee.

• Sen v Headley [1991] - Donor gave access to the safe and in the safe were the ownership deeds to the property. Court of Appeal held that there was a valid donatio mortis causa of the house, by constructive delivery of the title deeds.

  • By contrast handing over the keys would be insufficient as only...