글 목록

프로필

내 사진
서울 서초구 반포대로 14길 30, 센추리 412호. TEL: 010-6350-1799 이메일:jawala.lee@gmail.com. Attorney at Law, Tax, Patent. Lee,Jae Wook is a member of the Korean Bar Association and Illinois Bar Association. Licensed to practice in KOREA and U.S.A., Illinois. Attorney Lee has worked since 1997.3. as a prominent Attorney in the legal service field including tax, law, patent, immigration, transaction across the border. You can find more at http://taxnlaw.co.kr

2013년 5월 14일 화요일


Trust law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship whereby property (real or personal, tangible or intangible) is held by one party for the benefit of another. A trust conventionally arises when property is transferred by one party to be held by another party for the benefit of a third party, although it is also possible for a legal owner to create a trust of property without transferring it to anyone else, simply by declaring that the property will henceforth be held for the benefit of the beneficiary. A trust is created by a settlor, who transfers some or all of his property to a trustee, who holds that trust property (also called the principal or corpus) for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
The settlor is also called the trustor, grantor, donor, creator, or founder. In the case of the self-declared trust, the settlor and trustee are the same person. The trustee has legal title to the trust property, but the beneficiaries have equitable title to the trust property (separation of control and ownership). The trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, who are the "beneficial" owners of the trust property. The trustee may be either a natural person or a legal person (such as a company or a public body), and there may be a single trustee or multiple co-trustees. There may be a single beneficiary or multiple beneficiaries. The settlor may himself be a beneficiary.
The trust is governed by the terms under which it was created. The terms of the trust are usually written down in a trust instrument or deed but, in England and Wales, it is not necessary for them to be written down to be legally binding, except in the case of land. The terms of the trust must specify that property is to be transferred into the trust (certainty of subject-matter), and who the beneficiaries will be of that trust (certainty of objects). It may also set out the detailed powers and duties of the trustees (such as powers of investment, powers to vary the interests of the beneficiaries, and powers to appoint new trustees). The trust is also governed by local law. The trustee is obliged to administer the trust in accordance with both the terms of the trust and the governing law.

Contents

 [hide

History [edit]

Roman law had a well-developed concept of the trust (fideicommissum) in terms of "testamentary trusts" created by wills but never developed the concept of the inter vivos (living) trusts which apply while the creator lives. This was created by later common law jurisdictions. The waqf is a similar institution in Islamic law, restricted to charitable trusts. Personal trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries.[citation needed] In medieval English trust law, the settlor was known as the feoffor to uses while the trustee was known as the feoffee to uses and the beneficiary was known as the cestui que use, or cestui que trust.
At the time, land ownership in England was based on the feudal system. When a landowner left England to fight in the Crusades, he conveyed ownership of his lands in his absence to manage the estate and pay and receive feudal dues, on the understanding that the ownership would be conveyed back on his return. However, Crusaders often encountered refusal to hand over the property upon their return. Unfortunately for the Crusader, English common law did not recognize his claim. As far as the King's courts were concerned, the land belonged to the trustee, who was under no obligation to return it. The Crusader had no legal claim. The disgruntled Crusader would then petition the king, who would refer the matter to his Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor could decide a case according to his conscience. At this time, the principle of equity was born.
The Lord Chancellor would consider it "unconscionable" that the legal owner could go back on his word and deny the claims of the Crusader (the "true" owner). Therefore, he would find in favor of the returning Crusader. Over time, it became known that the Lord Chancellor's court (the Court of Chancery) would continually recognize the claim of a returning Crusader. The legal owner would hold the land for the benefit of the original owner, and would be compelled to convey it back to him when requested. The Crusader was the "beneficiary" and the acquaintance the "trustee". The term "use of land" was coined, and in time developed into what we now know as a trust.
"Antitrust law" emerged in the 19th century when industries created monopolistic trusts by entrusting their shares to a board of trustees in exchange for shares of equal value with dividend rights; these boards could then enforce a monopoly. However, trusts were used in this case because a corporation could not own other companies' stock[1]:447 and thereby become a holding company without a "special act of the legislature".[2] Holding companies were used after the restriction on owning other companies' shares was lifted.[1]:447

Significance [edit]

The trust is widely considered to be the most innovative contribution to the English legal system.[3] Today, trusts play a significant role in most common law systems, and their success has led some civil law jurisdictions to incorporate trusts into their civil codes. Curaçao for example has introduced a trust in its Civil Code from 1 January 2012, which does only allow express trusts, constituted by a Notarial deed.[4] France has recently added a similar, though not quite comparable, notion to its own law with la fiducie,[5] which was modified in 2009;[6] la fiducie, unlike the trust, is a contract. Trusts are widely used internationally, especially in countries within the English law sphere of influence, and whilst most civil law jurisdictions do not generally contain the concept of a trust within their legal systems, they do recognise the concept under the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition (partly only the extent that they are parties thereto). The Hague Convention also regulates conflict of trusts.
Although trusts are often associated with intrafamily wealth transfers, they have become very important in American capital markets, particularly through pension funds (essentially always trusts) and mutual funds (often trusts).[1]

Basic principles [edit]

Overview [edit]

Property of any sort may be held in a trust. The uses of trusts are many and varied, for both personal and commercial reasons, and trusts may provide benefits in estate planning, asset protection, and taxes. Living trusts may be created during a person's life (through the drafting of a trust instrument which is filed in a court) or after death in a will.
In a relevant sense, a trust can be viewed as a generic form of a corporation where the settlors (investors) are also the beneficiaries. This is particularly evident in the Delaware business trust, which could theoretically, with the language in the "governing instrument", be organized as a cooperative corporation, limited liability corporation, or perhaps even a nonprofit corporation,[1]:475–6 although traditionally the Massachusetts business trust has been commonly-used. One of the most significant aspects of trusts is the ability to partition and shield assets from the trustee, multiple beneficiaries, and their respective creditors (particularly the trustee's creditors), making it "bankruptcy remote", and leading to its use in pensions, mutual funds, and asset securitization[1] as well protection of individual spendthrifts through the spendthrift trust.

Terms [edit]

Chart of a trust
  • Appointment. In trust law, "appointment" often has its everyday meaning. It is common to talk of "the appointment of a trustee", for example. However, "appointment" also has a technical trust law meaning, either:
    • the act of appointing (i.e. giving) an asset from the trust to a beneficiary (usually where there is some choice in the matter—such as in a discretionary trust); or
    • the name of the document which gives effect to the appointment.
The trustee's right to do this, where it exists, is called a power of appointment. Sometimes, a power of appointment is given to someone other than the trustee, such as the settlor, the protector, or a beneficiary.
  • Protector. A protector may be appointed in an express, inter vivos trust, as a person who has some control over the trustee—usually including a power to dismiss the trustee and appoint another. The legal status of a protector is the subject of some debate. No-one doubts that a trustee has fiduciary responsibilities. If a protector also has fiduciary responsibilities then the courts—if asked by beneficiaries—could order him or her to act in the way the court decrees. However, a protector is unnecessary to the nature of a trust—many trusts can and do operate without one. Also, protectors are comparatively new, while the nature of trusts has been established over hundreds of years. It is therefore thought by some that protectors have fiduciary duties, and by others that they do not. The case law has not yet established this point.
  • Trustee. A person (either an individual, a corporation or more than one of either) who administers a trust. A trustee is considered a fiduciary and owes the highest duty under the law to protect trust assets from unreasonable loss for the trust's beneficiaries.

Creation [edit]

Trusts may be created by the expressed intentions of the settlor (express trusts) or they may be created by operation of law known as implied trusts. An implied trust is one created by a court of equity because of acts or situations of the parties. Implied trusts are divided into two categories: resulting and constructive. A resulting trust is implied by the law to work out the presumed intentions of the parties, but it does not take into consideration their expressed intent. A constructive trust is a trust implied by law to work out justice between the parties, regardless of their intentions.
Typically a trust can be created in the following ways:
  1. a written trust instrument created by the settlor and signed by both the settlor and the trustees (often referred to as an inter vivos or "living trust");
  2. an oral declaration;[7]
  3. the will of a decedent, usually called a testamentary trust; or
  4. a court order (for example in family proceedings).
In some jurisdictions certain types of assets may not be the subject of a trust without a written document.[8]

Formalities [edit]

Generally, a trust requires three certainties, as determined in Knight v Knight:
  1. Intention. There must be a clear intention to create a trust (Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry)
  2. Subject Matter. The property subject to the trust must be clearly identified (Palmer v Simmonds). One may not, for example state, settle "the majority of my estate", as the precise extent cannot be ascertained. Trust property may be any form of specific property, be it real or personal, tangible or intangible. It is often, for example, real estate, shares or cash.
  3. Objects. The beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identified, or at least be ascertainable (Re Hain's Settlement). In the case of discretionary trusts, where the trustees have power to decide who the beneficiaries will be, the settlor must have described a clear class of beneficiaries (McPhail v Doulton). Beneficiaries may include people not born at the date of the trust (for example, "my future grandchildren"). Alternatively, the object of a trust could be a charitable purpose rather than specific beneficiaries.

Trustees [edit]

A trust may have multiple trustees, and these trustees are the legal owners of the trust's property, but have a fiduciary duty to beneficiaries and various duties, such a duty of care and a duty to inform.[9] If trustees do not adhere to these duties, they may be removed through a legal action. The trustee may be either a person or a legal entity such as a company, but typically the trust itself is not an entity and any lawsuit must be against the trustees. A trustee has many rights and responsibilities which vary based on the jurisdiction and trust instrument. If a trust lacks a trustee, a court may appoint a trustee.
The trustees administer the affairs attendant to the trust. The trust's affairs may include prudently investing the assets of the trust, accounting for and reporting periodically to the beneficiaries, filing required tax returns, and other duties. In some cases dependent upon the trust instrument, the trustees must make discretionary decisions as to whether beneficiaries should receive trust assets for their benefit. A trustee may be held personally liable for problems, although fiduciary liability insurance similar to directors and officers liability insurance can be purchased. For example, a trustee could be liable if assets are not properly invested. However, in the United States, similar to directors and officers, an exculpatory clause may minimize liability; although this was previously held to be against public policy, this position has changed.[10]
In the United States, the Uniform Trust Code provides for reasonable compensation and reimbursement for trustees subject to review by courts,[11] although trustees may be unpaid. Commercial banks acting as trustees typically charge about 1% of assets under management.[12]

Beneficiaries [edit]

The beneficiaries are beneficial (or equitable) owners of the trust property. Either immediately or eventually, the beneficiaries will receive income from the trust property, or they will receive the property itself. The extent of a beneficiary's interest depends on the wording of the trust document. One beneficiary may be entitled to income (for example, interest from a bank account), whereas another may be entitled to the entirety of the trust property when he attains the age of twenty-five years. The settlor has much discretion when creating the trust, subject to some limitations imposed by law.

Purposes [edit]

Common purposes for trusts include:
  1. Privacy. Trusts may be created purely for privacy. The terms of a will are public and the terms of a trust are not. In some families, this alone makes the use of trusts ideal.
  2. Spendthrift protection. Trusts may be used to protect beneficiaries (for example, one's children) against their own inability to handle money. These are especially attractive for spendthrifts. Courts may generally recognize spendthrift clauses against trust beneficiaries and their creditors, but not against creditors of a settlor.[citation needed]
  3. Wills and Estate Planning. Trusts frequently appear in wills (indeed, technically, the administration of every deceased's estate is a form of trust). Conventional wills typically leave assets to the deceased's spouse (if any), and then to the children equally. If the children are under 18, or under some other age mentioned in the will (21 and 25 are common), a trust must come into existence until the contingency age is reached. The executor of the will is (usually) the trustee, and the children are the beneficiaries. The trustee will have powers to assist the beneficiaries during their minority.[13]
  4. Charities. In some common law jurisdictions all charities must take the form of trusts. In others, corporations may be charities also. In most jurisdictions, charities are tightly regulated for the public benefit (in England, for example, by the Charity Commission).
  5. Unit trusts. The trust has proved to be such a flexible concept that it has proved capable of working as an investment vehicle: the unit trust.
  6. Pension plans. Pension plans are typically set up as a trust, with the employer as settlor, and the employees and their dependents as beneficiaries.
  7. Remuneration trusts. Trusts for the benefit of directors and employees or companies or their families or dependents. This form of trust was developed by Paul Baxendale-Walker and has since gained widespread use.[14]
  8. Corporate structures. Complex business arrangements, most often in the finance and insurance sectors, sometimes use trusts among various other entities (e.g., corporations) in their structure.
  9. Asset protection. Trusts may allow beneficiaries to protect assets from creditors as the trust may be bankruptcy remote. For example, a discretionary trust, of which the settlor may be the protector and a beneficiary, but not the trustee and not the sole beneficiary. In such an arrangement the settlor may be in a position to benefit from the trust assets, without owning them, and therefore in theory protected from creditors. In addition, the trust may attempt to preserve anonymity with a completely unconnected name (e.g., "The Teddy Bear Trust"). These strategies are ethically and legally controversial.
  10. Tax planning. The tax consequences of doing anything using a trust are usually different from the tax consequences of achieving the same effect by another route (if, indeed, it would be possible to do so). In many cases, the tax consequences of using the trust are better than the alternative, and trusts are therefore frequently used for legal tax avoidance. For an example see the "nil-band discretionary trust", explained at Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom).
  11. Co-ownership. Ownership of property by more than one person is facilitated by a trust. In particular, ownership of a matrimonial home is commonly effected by a trust with both partners as beneficiaries and one, or both, owning the legal title as trustee.
  12. Construction law. In Canada[15] and Minnesota[16] monies owed by employers to contractors or by contractors to subcontractors on construction projects must by law be held in trust. In the event of contractor insolvency, this makes it much more likely that subcontractors will be paid for work completed.

Types [edit]

Alphabetic list of trust types [edit]

Trusts go by many different names, depending on the characteristics or the purpose of the trust. Because trusts often have multiple characteristics or purposes, a single trust might accurately be described in several ways. For example, a living trust is often an express trust, which is also a revocable trust, and might include an incentive trust, and so forth.
  • Constructive trust. Unlike an express trust, a constructive trust is not created by an agreement between a settlor and the trustee. A constructive trust is imposed by the law as an "equitable remedy." This generally occurs due to some wrongdoing, where the wrongdoer has acquired legal title to some property and cannot in good conscience be allowed to benefit from it. A constructive trust is, essentially, a legal fiction. For example, a court of equity recognizing a plaintiff's request for the equitable remedy of a constructive trust may decide that a constructive trust has been created and simply order the person holding the assets to deliver them to the person who rightfully should have them. The constructive trustee is not necessarily the person who is guilty of the wrongdoing, and in practice it is often a bank or similar organization. The distinction may be finer than the preceding exposition in that there are also said to be two forms of constructive trust, the institutional constructive trust and the remedial constructive trust. The latter is an "equitable remedy" imposed by law being truly remedial; the former arising due to some defect in the transfer of property.
  • Directed trust. In these types, a directed trustee is directed by a number of other trust participants in implementing the trust's execution; these participants may include a distribution committee, trust protector, or investment advisor. The directed trustee's role is administrative which involves following investment instructions, holding legal title to the trust assets, providing fiduciary and tax accounting, coordinating trust participants and offering dispute resolution among the participants
  • Dynasty trust (also known as a generation-skipping trust). A type of trust in which assets are passed down to the grantor's grandchildren, not the grantor's children. The children of the grantor never take title to the assets. This allows the grantor to avoid the estate taxes that would apply if the assets were transferred to his or her children first. Generation-skipping trusts can still be used to provide financial benefits to a grantor's children, however, because any income generated by the trust's assets can be made accessible to the grantor's children while still leaving the assets in trust for the grandchildren.
  • Express trust. An express trust arises where a settlor deliberately and consciously decides to create a trust, over their assets, either now, or upon his or her later death. In these cases this will be achieved by signing a trust instrument, which will either be a will or a trust deed. Almost all trusts dealt with in the trust industry are of this type. They contrast with resulting and constructive trusts. The intention of the parties to create the trust must be shown clearly by their language or conduct. For an express trust to exist, there must be certainty to the objects of the trust and the trust property. In the USA Statute of Frauds provisions require express trusts to be evidenced in writing if the trust property is above a certain value, or is real estate.
  • Fixed trust. In a fixed trust, the entitlement of the beneficiaries is fixed by the settlor. The trustee has little or no discretion. Common examples are:
    • a trust for a minor ("to x if she attains 21");
    • a life interest ("to pay the income to x for her lifetime"); and
    • a remainder ("to pay the capital to y after the death of x")
  • Hybrid trust. A hybrid trust combines elements of both fixed and discretionary trusts. In a hybrid trust, the trustee must pay a certain amount of the trust property to each beneficiary fixed by the settlor. But the trustee has discretion as to how any remaining trust property, once these fixed amounts have been paid out, is to be paid to the beneficiaries.
  • Implied trust. An implied trust, as distinct from an express trust, is created where some of the legal requirements for an express trust are not met, but an intention on behalf of the parties to create a trust can be presumed to exist. A resulting trust may be deemed to be present where a trust instrument is not properly drafted and a portion of the equitable title has not been provided for. In such a case, the law may raise a resulting trust for the benefit of the grantor (the creator of the trust). In other words, the grantor may be deemed to be a beneficiary of the portion of the equitable title that was not properly provided for in the trust document.
  • Incentive trust. A trust that uses distributions from income or principal as an incentive to encourage or discourage certain behaviors on the part of the beneficiary. The term "incentive trust" is sometimes used to distinguish trusts that provide fixed conditions for access to trust funds from discretionary trusts that leave such decisions up to the trustee.
  • Inter vivos trust (or living trust). A settlor who is living at the time the trust is established creates an inter vivos trust.
  • Irrevocable trust. In contrast to a revocable trust, an irrevocable trust is one in which the terms of the trust cannot be amended or revised until the terms or purposes of the trust have been completed. Although in rare cases, a court may change the terms of the trust due to unexpected changes in circumstances that make the trust uneconomical or unwieldy to administer, under normal circumstances an irrevocable trust may not be changed by the trustee or the beneficiaries of the trust.
  • Offshore trust. Strictly speaking, an offshore trust is a trust which is resident in any jurisdiction other than that in which the settlor is resident. However, the term is more commonly used to describe a trust in one of the jurisdictions known as offshore financial centers or, colloquially, as tax havens. Offshore trusts are usually conceptually similar to onshore trusts in common law countries, but usually with legislative modifications to make them more commercially attractive by abolishing or modifying certain common law restrictions. By extension, "onshore trust" has come to mean any trust resident in a high-tax jurisdiction.
  • Personal injury trust. A personal injury trust is any form of trust where funds are held by trustees for the benefit of a person who has suffered an injury and funded exclusively by funds derived from payments made in consequence of that injury.
  • Private and public trusts. A private trust has one or more particular individuals as its beneficiary. By contrast, a public trust (also called a charitable trust) has some charitable end as its beneficiary. In order to qualify as a charitable trust, the trust must have as its object certain purposes such as alleviating poverty, providing education, carrying out some religious purpose, etc. The permissible objects are generally set out in legislation, but objects not explicitly set out may also be an object of a charitable trust, by analogy. Charitable trusts are entitled to special treatment under the law of trusts and also the law of taxation.
  • Protective trust. Here the terminology is different between the UK and the USA:
    • In the UK, a protective trust is a life interest which terminates on the happening of a specified event such as the bankruptcy of the beneficiary or any attempt by him to dispose of his interest. They have become comparatively rare.
    • In the USA, a protective trust is a type of trust that was devised for use in estate planning. (In another jurisdiction this might be thought of as one type of asset protection trust.) Often a person, A, wishes to leave property to another person B. A however fears that the property might be claimed by creditors before A dies, and that therefore B would receive none of it. A could establish a trust with B as the beneficiary, but then A would not be entitled to use of the property before they died. Protective trusts were developed as a solution to this situation. A would establish a trust with both A and B as beneficiaries, with the trustee instructed to allow A use of the property until they died, and thereafter to allow its use to B. The property is then safe from being claimed by A's creditors, at least so long as the debt was entered into after the trust's establishment. This use of trusts is similar to life estates and remainders, and are frequently used as alternatives to them.
  • Purpose trust. Or, more accurately, non-charitable purpose trust (all charitable trusts are purpose trusts). Generally, the law does not permit non-charitable purpose trusts outside of certain anomalous exceptions which arose under the eighteenth century common law (and, arguable, Quistclose trusts). Certain jurisdictions (principally, offshore jurisdictions) have enacted legislation validating non-charitable purpose trusts generally.
  • Resulting trust. A resulting trust is a form of implied trust which occurs where (1) a trust fails, wholly or in part, as a result of which the settlor becomes entitled to the assets; or (2) a voluntary payment is made by A to B in circumstances which do not suggest gifting. B becomes the resulting trustee of A's payment.
  • Revocable trust. A trust of this kind may be amended, altered or revoked by its settlor at any time, provided the settlor is not mentally incapacitated. Revocable trusts are becoming increasingly common in the US as a substitute for a will to minimize administrative costs associated with probate and to provide centralized administration of a person's final affairs after death.
  • Secret trust. A post mortem trust constituted externally from a will but imposing obligations as a trustee on one, or more, legatees of a will.
  • Simple trust.
    • In the US jurisdiction this has two distinct meanings:
      • In a simple trust the trustee has no active duty beyond conveying the property to the beneficiary at some future time determined by the trust. This is also called a bare trust. All other trusts are special trusts where the trustee has active duties beyond this.
      • A simple trust in Federal income tax law is one in which, under the terms of the trust document, all net income must be distributed on an annual basis.
    • In the UK a bare or simple trust is one where the beneficiary has an immediate and absolute right to both the capital and income held in the trust. Bare trusts are commonly used to transfer assets to minors. Trustees hold the assets on trust until the beneficiary is 18 in England and Wales, or 16 in Scotland.[17]
  • Special trust. In the US, a special trust, also called complex trust, contrasts with a simple trust (see above). It does not require the income be paid out within the subject tax year. The funds from a complex trust can also be used to donate to a charity or for charitable purposes.
  • A Spendthrift trust is a trust put into place for the benefit of a person who is unable to control their spending. It gives the trustee the power to decide how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
  • Standby Trust or Pourover Trust. The trust is empty at creation during life and the will transfers the property into the trust at death. This is a statutory trust.
  • Testamentary trust or Will Trust. A trust created in an individual's will is called a testamentary trust. Because a will can become effective only upon death, a testamentary trust is generally created at or following the date of the settlor's death.
  • Unit trust. A unit trust is a trust where the beneficiaries (called unitholders) each possess a certain share (called units) and can direct the trustee to pay money to them out of the trust property according to the number of units they possess. A unit trust is a vehicle for collective investment, rather than disposition, as the person who gives the property to the trustee is also the beneficiary.[18]

Regional variations [edit]

Trusts originated in England, and therefore English trusts law has had a significant influence, particularly among common law legal systems such as the United States and the countries of the Commonwealth.
Trust law in civil law jurisdictions, generally including Continental Europe, typically does not exist, but arises due to conflict of laws. Tax avoidance concerns have historically been one of the reasons that European countries have been reluctant to adopt trusts.[1]

United States [edit]

State law applies to trusts, and the Uniform Trust Code has been enacted by the legislatures in many states. In addition, federal law considerations such as federal taxes administered by the Internal Revenue Service may affect the structure and creation of trusts. The common law of trusts is summarized in the Restatements of the Law, such as the Restatement of Trusts, Third (2003−08).
In the United States the tax law allows trusts to be taxed as corporations, partnerships, or not at all depending on the circumstances, although trusts may be used for tax avoidance in certain situations.[1]:478 For example, the trust-preferred security is a hybrid (debt and equity) security with favorable tax treatment which is treated as regulatory capital on banks' balance sheets. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act changed this somewhat by not allowing these assets to be a part of (large) banks' regulatory capital.[19]:23

Estate planning [edit]

Living trusts, as opposed to testamentary (will) trusts, avoid probate.[20] Avoiding probate may save costs and maintain privacy[21] and living trusts have become very popular.[22] The probate courts may charge a fee based on a percentage net worth of the deceased time, and probate records are available to the public while distribution through a trust is private. Both living trusts and wills can also be used to plan for unforeseen circumstances such as incapacity or disability, by giving discretionary powers to the trustee or executor of the will.
Negative aspects of using a living trust as opposed to a will and probate include upfront legal expenses, the expense of trust administration, and a lack of certain safeguards. The cost of the trust may be 1% of the estate per year versus the one-time lump-sum fee of 1 to 4% for probate, which applies regardless of whether lack of drafted will. Unlike trusts, wills must be signed by two to three witnesses, the number depending on state law. Legal protections which apply to probate and not trusts include provisions which protect the decedent's assets from mismanagement or embezzlement, such a requirements of bonding, insurance, and itemized accountings of probate assets.

Estate tax effect [edit]

Living trusts generally do not shelter assets from the U.S. federal estate tax. Married couples may, however, effectively double the estate tax exemption amount by setting up the trust with a formula clause.[23]
For a living trust, the grantor may retain some level of control to the trust, such by appointment as protector under the trust instrument. Living trusts also, in practical terms, tend to be driven to large extent by tax considerations. If a living trust fails, the property will usually be held for the grantor/settlor on resulting trusts, which in some notable cases, has had catastrophic tax consequences.[citation needed]

South Africa [edit]

In many ways trusts in South Africa operate similarly to other common law countries, although the law of South Africa is actually a hybrid of the British common law system and the Dutch civil law.
In South Africa, in addition to the traditional living trusts and will trusts there is a "bewind trust" (arising from Dutch law bewind and Roman-Dutch bewindhebber)[24] in which the beneficiaries own the trust assets while the trustee administers the trust, although this is regarded by lawyers in the Netherlands as not actually a trust.[25] Bewind trusts are created as trading vehicles providing trustees with limited liability and certain tax advantages.[citation needed]
In South Africa, minor children cannot inherit assets and in the absence of a trust and assets held in a state institution, the Guardian's Fund, and released to the children in adulthood. Therefore testamentary (will) trusts often leave assets in a trust for the benefit of these minor children.
There are two types of living trusts in South Africa, namely vested trusts and discretionary trusts. In vested trusts, the benefits of the beneficiaries are set out in the trust deed, whereas in discretionary trusts the trustees have full discretion at all times as to how much and when each beneficiary is to benefit.

Asset protection [edit]

Until recently, there were tax advantages to living trusts in South Africa, although most of these advantages have been removed. Protection of assets from creditors is a modern advantage. With notable exceptions, assets held by the trust are not owned by the trustees or the beneficiaries, the creditors of trustees or beneficiaries can have no claim against the trust. Under the Insolvency Act (Act 24 of 1936), assets transferred into a living trust remain at risk from external creditors for 6 months if the previous owner of the assets is solvent at the time of transfer, or 24 months if he/she is insolvent at the time of transfer. After 24 months, creditors have no claim against assets in the trust, although they can attempt to attach the loan account, thereby forcing the trust to sell its assets. Assets can be transferred into the living trust by selling it to the trust (through a loan granted to the trust) or donating cash to it (any natural person can donate R100 000 per year without attracting donations tax; 20% donations tax applies to further donations within the same tax year).

Tax considerations [edit]

Under South African law living trusts are considered tax payers. Two types of tax apply to living trusts, namely income tax and capital gains tax (CGT). A trust pays income tax at a flat rate of 40% (individuals pay according to income scales, usually less than 20%). The trust's income can, however, be taxed in the hands of either the trust or the beneficiary. A trust pays CGT at the rate of 20% (individuals pay 10%). Trusts do not pay deceased estate tax (although trusts may be required to pay back outstanding loans to a deceased estate, in which the loan amounts are taxable with deceased estate tax).[26]
The taxpayer whose residence has been "locked" into a trust has now been given another opportunity to take advantage of these CGT exemptions. The Taxation Law Amendment Act was promulgated on 30 September 2009 and takes effect on 1 January 2010 allowing a window period of 2 (two) years from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011 for the opportunity of a natural person to take transfer of the residence with advantage of no transfer duty being payable or CGT consequences. Whilst taxpayers can take advantage of this opening of a window of opportunity is not likely that it will ever become available thereafter.[27]

See also [edit]

Jurisdiction specific:

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Hansmann, Henry; Mattei, Ugo (May 1998). "The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis" (PDF). New York University Law Review. Retrieved 1 November 2012. 
  2. ^ Chandler, Jr., Alfred D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Harvard University Press. pp. 319–20. 
  3. ^ Roy Goode, Commercial Law (2nd ed.)
  4. ^ M. Bergervoet and D.S. Mansur (14 april 2012). "De Curaçaose trust in de partijk". Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie (in Dutch). 
  5. ^ "Loi n°2007-211 du 19 février 2007 instituant la fiducie". Legifrance.gouv.fr, le service public de la diffusion du droit. 01 février 2009. 
  6. ^ "Ordonnance n°2009-79 du 22 janvier 2009 (consolidated version)". Legifrance.gouv.fr, le service public de la diffusion du droit. 01 février 2009. 
  7. ^ See for example T Choithram International SA and others v Pagarani and others [2001] 2 All ER 492
  8. ^ For example, in England, trusts over land must be evidenced in writing under s.56 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  9. ^ Edward Jones Trust Company. Fundamental Duties of a Trustee: A Guide for Trustees in a post-Uniform Trust Code World.
  10. ^ Last Beneficiary Standing: Identifying the Proper Parties in Breach of Fiduciary Cases. American Bar Association, Section of Real Property, Trust, & Estate Law. 20th Annual Real Property & Estate Planning Symposia.
  11. ^ Trust Code Summary. Uniform Law Commission.
  12. ^ Schanzenbach MM, Sitkoff RF. (2007). Did Reform of Prudent Trust Investment Laws Change Trust Portfolio Allocation?. Harvard Law School John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business Discussion Paper Series. Paper 580.
  13. ^ Rosenberg, Scott D. (2009-2010). "Frequently Asked Questions". 
  14. ^ Paul BW Chaplin#Biography
  15. ^ Kirsh, Harvey J; Roth, Lori A (1 September 1997). Construction law: Breach of trust in the construction industry. International Finance Law Review (IFLR). 
  16. ^ Richards, Leigh. "Subcontractors Rights Against a Contractor Not Paying". Retrieved 1 November 2012. 
  17. ^ "Bare trusts". HM Revenue & Customs. Retrieved 1 November 2012. 
  18. ^ Kam Fan Sin, The Legal Nature of the Unit Trust, Clarendon Press, 1998.
  19. ^ "The Dodd-Frank Act: Commentary and Insights" (PDF). Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates. [dead link]
  20. ^ Hannibal BS. (Testamentary Trusts: A testamentary trust goes into effect after the death of the trust maker. Nolo.
  21. ^ Frequently asked questions about estate planning and probate. Francis, Orr, & Totusek LLP.
  22. ^ American Bar Association. Ch.5 Living Trusts. Appears to be online copy of: The American Bar Association guide to wills and estates (1995). See also Ch. 4, Trusts.
  23. ^ The formula clause may be: "I leave to my child the maximum allowable amount that is not subject to federal estate tax, with the remainder going to my wife." As of 2013, transfers to spouses are exempt from estate tax. See: After The Fiscal Cliff Deal: Estate And Gift Tax Explained. Forbes.
  24. ^ Trust Overview. Moore Stephens Chartered Accountants.
  25. ^ Oakley JA. (1996). Trends in Contemporary Trust Law, p. 108.
  26. ^ E-book: Trusts for Business Owners, by Peter Carruthers and Robert Velosa.
  27. ^ Miller, Winston E. (18 December 2009). "Dump That Trust Through The Window: Family Trust Tax Window". Winston Miller Attorneys. 

References [edit]

Books
  • Hudson, A (2003). Equity and Trusts (3rd ed.). Cavendish Publishing. ISBN 1-85941-729-9. 
  • Mitchell, Charles; Hayton, DJ (2005). Hayton and Marshall's Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies (12th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. 
  • Mitchell, Charles; Hayton, DJ; Matthews, P (2006). Underhill and Hayton's Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees (17th ed.). Butterworths. 

2013년 5월 13일 월요일


Negligent infliction of emotional distress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has alegal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

Contents

  [hide

History [edit]

NIED began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm upon them. By 1908, most industrial U.S. states had adopted the "physical impact" form of NIED. However, NIED started developing into its more mature and more controversial form in the mid-20th century, as the new machines of the Second Industrial Revolution flooded the legal system with all kinds of previously unimaginable complex factual scenarios. Courts began to allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress resulting from negligent physical injuries to not only themselves, but other persons with whom they had a special relationship, like a relative. The first step, then, was to remove the requirement of physical injury to the actual plaintiff while keeping the requirement of physical injury to someone. In the 1968 landmark decision of Dillon v. Legg, the Supreme Court of California was the first court to allow recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiff – in the particular situation where the plaintiff simply witnessed the death of a close relative at a distance, and was not within the "zone of danger" where the relative was killed.[1] A 2007 statistical study commissioned by the Court found that Dillon was the most persuasive decision published by the Court between 1940 and 2005; Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision.[2]
The next step after Dillon was to make optional the element of another person (so that the injury could be to anything where it would be reasonably foreseeable that such injury would cause some person emotional distress). The first such case was Rodrigues v. State,[3] in which the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that plaintiffs could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of negligently caused flood damage to their home. This is generally considered to be the true birth of NIED as a separate tort.
Twelve years after DillonCalifornia expanded NIED again, by holding that a relative could recover even where the underlying physical injury was de minimis (unnecessary medications and medical tests) if the outcome was foreseeable (the breakup of the plaintiffs' marriage as a result of the defendants' negligent and incorrect diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease).[4]
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time recognized NIED as part of federal common law, by holding that railroad workers could pursue NIED claims against their employers under the Federal Employers Liability Act.[5] The Court recognized only the pre-Dillon form of NIED, though, in that the plaintiff had to be within a zone of danger to recover in the absence of physical injury.
In 1999, Hawaii took NIED even further by expressly holding that "damages may be based solely upon serious emotional distress, even absent proof of a predicate physical injury."[6]

Criticisms of the tort [edit]

The tort is generally disfavored by most states because it appears to have no definable parameters and the potential claims that can be made under the theory are wide open. It is difficult to define what situations would give rise to such a claim, and what situations would not. Because of this substantial uncertainty, most legal theorists find the theory to be unworkable in practice.
A corollary of this critique is that the tort runs the risk (in the bystander NIED context) of overcompensating plaintiffs for distress which would have occurred anyway regardless of the cause of death of the decedent. In a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of California which severely limited the availability of bystander NIED, Associate Justice David Eagleson wrote in Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989):
No policy supports extension of the right to recover for NIED to a larger class of plaintiffs. Emotional distress is an intangible condition experienced by most persons, even absent negligence, at some time during their lives. Close relatives suffer serious, even debilitating, emotional reactions to the injury, death, serious illness, and evident suffering of loved ones. These reactions occur regardless of the cause of the loved one's illness, injury, or death. That relatives will have severe emotional distress is an unavoidable aspect of the 'human condition.' The emotional distress for which monetary damages may be recovered, however, ought not to be that form of acute emotional distress or the transient emotional reaction to the occasional gruesome or horrible incident to which every person may potentially be exposed in an industrial and sometimes violent society. . . . The overwhelming majority of 'emotional distress' which we endure, therefore, is not compensable.[7]
An additional criticism of the tort is that it leads to abuse of liability insurance coverage. Most liability insurance policies provide for coverage of negligently inflicted injuries but exclude coverage of intentionally inflicted injuries. If a victim is intentionally injured by a person, many theorists perceive that the victim will tend to recast the claim as being one for negligence in order to fall within the coverage of the insurance policy.
The Texas case of Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) is illustrative. In this case, the defendant secretly videotaped himself engaging in sexual activities with the plaintiff. The defendant then showed this videotape to numerous individuals and caused severe distress to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas observed that the facts did not support a claim of negligence. Rather, the Court noted, the facts clearly supported a claim of an intentional injury by the defendant and it was evident that the claim had been cast as "negligence" solely to obtain insurance coverage. The Court then went on to hold that Texas did not recognize a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jurisdictions that have rejected the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress do not forbid the recovery of damages for mental injuries. Instead, these jurisdictions usually allow recovery for emotional distress where such distress:
  1. is inflicted intentionally (i.e., intentional infliction of emotional distress)
  2. is directly associated with a physical injury negligently inflicted upon a victim (e.g., emotional distress resulting from a loss of limb or disfigurement of the face)
  3. is caused by defamation and libel;
  4. stems from witnessing a gruesome accident as a bystander
  5. is the product of some misconduct universally recognized as causing emotional distress such as mishandling a loved one’s corpse or failing to deliver a death notice in a timely manner.

References [edit]

  1. ^ See Dillon v. Legg68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968).
  2. ^ Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen, " Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940-200541 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 683, 694(2007).
  3. ^ 52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970).
  4. ^ See Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980).
  5. ^ Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994).
  6. ^ Roes v. FHP, Inc.91 Haw. 470, 985 P.2d 661 (1999).
  7. ^ Thing v. La Chusa48 Cal. 3d 644, 666-667 (1989).

External links [edit]


Negligent infliction of emotional distress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of the common law series
Tort law
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass land chattels  Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of / standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Negligent infliction of emotional distress Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice legal medical
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability and remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts, and estates
 Law portal
v t e
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.
Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticisms of the tort
3 References
4 External links
History [edit]

NIED began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm upon them. By 1908, most industrial U.S. states had adopted the "physical impact" form of NIED. However, NIED started developing into its more mature and more controversial form in the mid-20th century, as the new machines of the Second Industrial Revolution flooded the legal system with all kinds of previously unimaginable complex factual scenarios. Courts began to allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress resulting from negligent physical injuries to not only themselves, but other persons with whom they had a special relationship, like a relative. The first step, then, was to remove the requirement of physical injury to the actual plaintiff while keeping the requirement of physical injury to someone. In the 1968 landmark decision of Dillon v. Legg, the Supreme Court of California was the first court to allow recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiff – in the particular situation where the plaintiff simply witnessed the death of a close relative at a distance, and was not within the "zone of danger" where the relative was killed.[1] A 2007 statistical study commissioned by the Court found that Dillon was the most persuasive decision published by the Court between 1940 and 2005; Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision.[2]
The next step after Dillon was to make optional the element of another person (so that the injury could be to anything where it would be reasonably foreseeable that such injury would cause some person emotional distress). The first such case was Rodrigues v. State,[3] in which the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that plaintiffs could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of negligently caused flood damage to their home. This is generally considered to be the true birth of NIED as a separate tort.
Twelve years after Dillon, California expanded NIED again, by holding that a relative could recover even where the underlying physical injury was de minimis (unnecessary medications and medical tests) if the outcome was foreseeable (the breakup of the plaintiffs' marriage as a result of the defendants' negligent and incorrect diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease).[4]
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time recognized NIED as part of federal common law, by holding that railroad workers could pursue NIED claims against their employers under the Federal Employers Liability Act.[5] The Court recognized only the pre-Dillon form of NIED, though, in that the plaintiff had to be within a zone of danger to recover in the absence of physical injury.
In 1999, Hawaii took NIED even further by expressly holding that "damages may be based solely upon serious emotional distress, even absent proof of a predicate physical injury."[6]
Criticisms of the tort [edit]

The tort is generally disfavored by most states because it appears to have no definable parameters and the potential claims that can be made under the theory are wide open. It is difficult to define what situations would give rise to such a claim, and what situations would not. Because of this substantial uncertainty, most legal theorists find the theory to be unworkable in practice.
A corollary of this critique is that the tort runs the risk (in the bystander NIED context) of overcompensating plaintiffs for distress which would have occurred anyway regardless of the cause of death of the decedent. In a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of California which severely limited the availability of bystander NIED, Associate Justice David Eagleson wrote in Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989):
No policy supports extension of the right to recover for NIED to a larger class of plaintiffs. Emotional distress is an intangible condition experienced by most persons, even absent negligence, at some time during their lives. Close relatives suffer serious, even debilitating, emotional reactions to the injury, death, serious illness, and evident suffering of loved ones. These reactions occur regardless of the cause of the loved one's illness, injury, or death. That relatives will have severe emotional distress is an unavoidable aspect of the 'human condition.' The emotional distress for which monetary damages may be recovered, however, ought not to be that form of acute emotional distress or the transient emotional reaction to the occasional gruesome or horrible incident to which every person may potentially be exposed in an industrial and sometimes violent society. . . . The overwhelming majority of 'emotional distress' which we endure, therefore, is not compensable.[7]
An additional criticism of the tort is that it leads to abuse of liability insurance coverage. Most liability insurance policies provide for coverage of negligently inflicted injuries but exclude coverage of intentionally inflicted injuries. If a victim is intentionally injured by a person, many theorists perceive that the victim will tend to recast the claim as being one for negligence in order to fall within the coverage of the insurance policy.
The Texas case of Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993) is illustrative. In this case, the defendant secretly videotaped himself engaging in sexual activities with the plaintiff. The defendant then showed this videotape to numerous individuals and caused severe distress to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas observed that the facts did not support a claim of negligence. Rather, the Court noted, the facts clearly supported a claim of an intentional injury by the defendant and it was evident that the claim had been cast as "negligence" solely to obtain insurance coverage. The Court then went on to hold that Texas did not recognize a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jurisdictions that have rejected the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress do not forbid the recovery of damages for mental injuries. Instead, these jurisdictions usually allow recovery for emotional distress where such distress:
is inflicted intentionally (i.e., intentional infliction of emotional distress)
is directly associated with a physical injury negligently inflicted upon a victim (e.g., emotional distress resulting from a loss of limb or disfigurement of the face)
is caused by defamation and libel;
stems from witnessing a gruesome accident as a bystander
is the product of some misconduct universally recognized as causing emotional distress such as mishandling a loved one’s corpse or failing to deliver a death notice in a timely manner.
References [edit]

^ See Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968).
^ Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen, " Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940-2005, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 683, 694(2007).
^ 52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970).
^ See Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980).
^ Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994).
^ Roes v. FHP, Inc., 91 Haw. 470, 985 P.2d 661 (1999).
^ Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 666-667 (1989).
External links [edit]

LawSchoolHelp.com article on infliction of emotional distress.


Rule Against Perpetuities
Terms:
Rule Against Perpetuities:
The rule that provides that certain future interests must vest, if at all, within 21 years after the death of a life in being at the time that the interest is created.
Of all the rules that have developed with regard to limiting the ability to transfer property, the one with the strongest ramifications today is the Rule Against Perpetuities. Although this rule’s ramifications are most significant when it comes to drafting trusts (which will be a major subject in the course on Wills, Trusts and Estates), we will discuss it in this section because it developed as a property rule. Unfortunately, the Rule Against Perpetuities is also quite complicated. We will try to break it down into terms that are as simple as possible.
Simply stated, the Rule Against Perpetuities states that certain interests in property must vest, if at all, within 21 years after the death of a life in being at the time that the interest was created.
The purpose of the rule is to prevent a person from drafting any kind of transfer agreement that could control the destiny of the land he is giving up fifty or sixty or a hundred or two hundred years after he is gone. In essence, the law seeks to prevent dynastic property whose transfer is restricted by the wishes of someone who has been dead for hundreds of years.
The rule applies to executory interests and contingent remainders. Interests that the grantor keeps (such as reversions and rights of re-entry) are exempt from the rule because, since the grantor is keeping the interest anyway, there is no reason he should not be able to control it (he could have controlled it without giving it away anyway).
The way to analyze whether a conveyance violates the Rule Against Perpetuities without having to think about all the convoluted policies that are behind it is to follow the following steps:
1) Determine whether there is a future interest involved in the conveyance that falls under the rule (contingent remainder or executory interest).
2) If there is such a future interest, is there any limitation on when the person holding that interest can actually get the property? If there is no such limitation (it can vest any time between now and eternity), the conveyance violates the rule and it is void.
3) If there is a limitation, determine which person or people are relevant in deciding when the future interest vests. These people are called the “measuring lives.”
4) Finally, determine whether it is possible that the interest vests more than 21 years after the deaths of all of the people who are currently alive and who are relevant to the vesting of the future interest.
Let’s look at some examples:
1) Batman conveys the batcave “to Alfred for life and then to Robin.” This does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because it is a vested remainder, not a contingent remainder. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to vested remainders.
2) Batman conveys the batcave “to Alfred for life and then to the oldest of Robin’s children.” This is a contingent remainder, but it is valid under the Rule Against Perpetuities. Think about the latest time that the interest can vest. That would be the time that Alfred dies (in fact, it’s the only time that the interest can vest). Thus, it is impossible for the interest to vest more than 21 years after Alfred’s death and so the conveyance is valid.
3) Batman conveys the batcave “to Alfred for life and then to the oldest of Robin’s children when he or she reaches 30 years old". Is it possible for this interest to vest more than 21 years after the death of everyone involved in the conveyance? Yes, it is. How? All of Robin’s children could die and Robin could have another child. Alfred could then die when that child is one year old. Thus, the interest would not actually vest in Robin’s oldest child until 29 years after the death of Alfred. Since no other person is relevant in determining when the interest vests, Alfred is the measuring life. Since the interest could vest more than 21 years after his death, the conveyance is not valid. See White v. Hayes, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 683. 
4) Batman conveys the batcave “to Robin, so long as the batcave is not used as a bar or restaurant.” The future interest involved here is in the grantor (it is a possibility of reverter). Thus, the Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply. So, even though Robin’s great great grandchild could forfeit the batcave by turning it into a restaurant, the conveyance is valid.
5) Batman conveys the batcave “to Robin, so long as the batcave is not used as a bar or restaurant, and then to Riddler. Riddler has an executory interest. Thus the Rule Against Perpetuities applies. Is it possible for the interest to vest more than 21 years after the death of everyone involved? Sure! Riddler’s interest could vest when Robin’s descendant, 500 years later, turns the batcave into a restaurant. Obviously Riddler would not be around to take the batcave, but his descendants would be able to. Thus, the conveyance is not valid.
The Rule Against Perpetuities sometimes leads to absurd results because it assumes that even the most unlikely of scenarios are possible in making the Rule Against Perpetuities determination. For example, the Rule Against Perpetuities assumes that a woman can always have another child. For example:
Marge is 80 years old. She has three children, Bart, Lisa and Maggie, who are each in their 50s. Homer conveys a house “to Marge for life and then to the oldest of Marge’s children who survive her when he or she reaches the age of 30.” This conveyance violates the rule. Why? Because it is possible that the interest will not vest in anyone involved who is alive today. How? Bart, Lisa and Maggie could all die tomorrow and then Marge could have another child and then die. Then the interest would not vest until almost 30 years after the deaths of Marge and all her children, who are the measuring lives. Obviously, this scenario is almost impossible, primarily because Marge will not have a child at age 80. Nevertheless, the rule is violated because the law considers anything possible. This aspect of the rule is wittily known as the “fertile octogenarian rule.”
Note, however, that many states have made modifications to the Rule Against Perpetuities, mostly with an eye toward avoiding absurd results. For example, many states now drop the assumption that a woman can always have another child for any woman above the age of 55.
There are many more complicated permutations that can arise from this rule, and we will discuss the rule again in the Wills and Trusts course. For now, just try to use the following flow chart to determine whether or not a conveyance violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.


http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/realProperty/EstateSystem/RuleAgainstPerpetuities.asp

이 블로그 검색