Equity and Trust (Law Other (Not Listed))

Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
September 4, 2020
Equity and Trust
* The 20,000 Euro donation to Castle Mount Fitness Club
A Trust is generally defined as a relationship whereby one party (a trustor) provides the legal title to another party (trustee) for the benefit of another party (beneficiary). While trust is generally upheld to be valid under natural circumstances, several exceptions provide the invalidity of a trust. In this first instance, it could be argued that the 20,000 Euro donation to Castle Mount Fitness Club is invalid. On the one hand, the UK Trust Law provides that an unincorporated association cannot generally be the beneficiary of trust since it fails to acquire a legal personality, which is the prerequisite to acquire properties. On the other hand, the 1959 ruling on the case of Leahy v AG also states that trusts for non-charitable purposes are generally void, especially when the beneficiary thereof is incapable of filing an action to enforce their rights thereof. This follows from the beneficiary principle which was used in different cases such as the Leahy v AG and Morice v Bishop of Durham. Thus, given that the donation to the Castle Mount Fitness Club is wanting of a valid beneficiary that could enforce their rights thereof, I would advise Zainab and Sima that it is invalid. Accordingly, due to the invalidity of this portion of the trust, the portion of the trust intended for Castle Mount Fitness Club will accrue to the other default beneficiaries.
* £200,000 to my Trustees which they may use as they think fit in helping deserving members of my family and in default to the MS Society, a registered charity.
This trust given to the trustees is valid under UK Law. Since the discretion on how to dispose of the trust is given to the trustees, Zainab and Sima, then this falls under the category of discretionary trusts that are allowed in the United Kingdom. Specifically, it was expressly shown that the trustor has given full discretion to the trustee to whether provide help to the “deserving members of [his] family” or in default to MS Society. the only requirement that the trustees would have to comply with under the law is the instructions provided by the trustor, which limits their discretion between the two beneficiaries.
In case the trustees chose not to give any portion of the trust to the members of the trustor’s family, this means that the £200,000 accrues to the default beneficiaries (MS Society) by operation of law. Accordingly, this trust is also valid because the general rule is that wholly charitable trusts to charitable societies are valid and binding. In light of this, I would advise both Zainab and Sima to exercise sound discretion about the trustor’s instruction in enforcing the trusts. If they so choose to not give any portion towards the trustor’s family members, then the remaining must all accrue towards the default beneficiary.
* I give £10,000 to my Trustees on trust to invest and use the income to look after my dogs, Saji and Izzie, for as long as the law allows.
This kind of trust is also va...