Trusts and Certyty of Intention

This article looks at the requirements and formalities for a valid trust. In UK law, a trust is an arrangement involving three classes of people; A Settlor, Trustees and Beneficiaries. The Settlor is the person who transfers property to the Trust. The Trustees are people who legally own the Trust Property and administrator it for the Beneficiaries. The Trustee 'powers are determined by law and may be defined by a trust agreement. The Beneficiaries are the people for whom benefit the trust property is held, and may receive income or capital from the Trust.

"No particular form of expression is necessary for the creation of a trust, if on the whole it can be gathered that a trust was intended." This statement gives the impression that no formalities are needed, and could be misleading. Although equity generally does look to intent rather than form, mere intention in the mind of the property owner is not enough. For a valid trust to exist, the Settlor must have the capacity to create a trust. He must positively transfer the trust property to a third party trustee or declare himself trustee. Further, he must intend to create a trust, and must define the trust property and beneficies clearly. This is known as the 'three assurances'; Certificate of subject matter, certainty of objects and certainty of intent.

Certificate of intent refers to a specific intention by a person to create a trust arrangement wheree Trustee (which may include himself) hold property, not for their own benefit but for the benefit of another person.

It is clear when trusts are created in writing and on the advice of legal professionals that intention is present [Re Steele's Will Trusts 1948]. However, no particular form of words is needed for the creation of a trust and here the equivalent maxim, "Equity looks to intent rather than form", applies. It is therefore sometimes necessary for the Courts to examine the words used by the owner of the property, and what obligations if any the Owner intended to impose upon those receiving the Property.

It is not necessary that the Owner expresses calls the arrangement a trust, or declares himself a trustee. He must however by his conduct demonstrate this intent, and use words which are to the same effect [Richards v Delbridge 1874]. For example, in Paul v Constance 1977, Mr Constance did not express declare a trust for himself and his wife, but he did insure his wife that the money was "as much yours as mine". Additionally, their joint bingo winnings were paid into the account and withdrawals were considered as their joint money. The Court therefore found from Mr Constance's words and conduct that he intended a trust.

Certiety of intention is also known as certainty of words, although it has been suggested a trust may be infringed just from conduct. Looking at Re Kayford 1975 1All ER 604, Megarry J says of certainty of words, "the question is whether in substance a sufficient intention to create a trust has been identified". In this case, Kayford Ltd deposited customer's money into a separate bank account and this was held to be a "useful" indication of an intention to create a trust, although not definitive. There was held to be a trust on the basis of conversations between the Company's managing director, accountant and manager so words were necessary for the conclusion.

In contrast, where the word 'trust' is expressly used, this is not a comprehensive evidence of the existence of a trust – the arrangement may in fact institute something very different [Stamp Duties Comr (Queensland) v Jolliffe (1920)]. For example, the deed may contain words such as "On trust, with power to appoint my nephews in such shares as my Trustee, Wilfred, shall in his absolute discretion decide, and in default of appointment, to my friend George". Although professing to be a trust, Wilfred is not under an obligation to appoint the nephews and provision is made for the property to pass to George if he does not. This is therefore a power of appointment, not a trust [eg. Re Leek (deceased) Darwen v Leek and Others [1968] 1 All ER 793].

Sometimes in a will, the owner of Property will use 'precatory' words such as expressing a 'wish, hope, belief or desire' that the receiver of property will handle it a certain way. For example, in Re Adams and Kensington Vestry 1884, a husband cave all of his property to his wife, "in full confidence that she will do what is right as to the disposal between between my children …". The Court held that the wife may have been under a moral obligation to treat the Property a definite way but this was not sufficient to create a binding trust. Precatory words can still sometimes create a trust. In Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury 1905, the words 'in full confidence' were again used, but the will also included further clauses, which were interpreted to create a trust. The Court will look at the whole of the document to ascertained the testator's intention, rather than dismissing the trust because of individual clauses.

There are further formalities required for certain types of trust property, and for a trust to be valid, title to the trust property must vest in the Trustee, or, the trust must be "constituted". This might be done for example, by delivery for chattels or by deed for land. If the trust is not properly constituted, the proposed beneficaries have no right to compel the Settlor to properly transfer the Property, as 'equity will not assist a volunteer'. The exception to this is where the beneficiary has provided consideration (including marriage) for the Settlor's promise, in which case, there would be a valid contract and the Beneficiary could sue for breach.

Where a testamentary trust of land or personalty is purported, the will in which it is contained must be in writing and executed in accordance with Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, which means the Will must be signed by the Testator in the joint presence of Two witnesses, and then signed by the two witnesses in the presence of the Testator.

Where a Settlor wants to create an inter vivos trust of personalty, the formalities are minimal. Under the usual requirements for a trust (capacity, the three responsibilities etc), the Settlor must observe any formalities required to properly transfer the Property to the trustees – for example, the execution and delivery of a stock transfer form for shares.

To create an inter vivos trust of land or of an equitable interest in land, in addition to the formalities of transferring the land, the declaration of trust must be in writing and must be signed by the person able to create the trust – ie, the Settlor or his attorney [S.53 (1) (b) Law Property Act 1925]. Where this formality is not accepted, the Trustee would hold the land on trust for the Settlor rather than the Beneficiary. The exception is where the rule in Strong v Bird 1874 applies – the Settlor intended to make an immediate unconditional transfer to the Trustee, the intention to do this was unchanged until the Settlor's death, and at least one of the Trustee is the Settlor's administrator or Executor. In this case, as the property is automatically vested in the Settlor's personal representatives and the trust is constituted.

It is sometimes stated that no particular form of expression is necessary to create a trust if intention was present. Clearly this is not the case. There are formalities for creating inter vivos land trusts and testamentary trusts and if these are not followed, the trust will fail without consideration has been provided or the rule in Strong v Bird 1874 applies, even if the Trustee had the best intentions. Further, the form of words used in those formalities must be clear and unambiguous, or they may not amount to a trust. He goes on to say that 'a trust may be created without using the word "trust"' and this is true in that other words and conduct to that effect are sufficient. However, the Court does not just regard the 'substance' of the words. If the word used does not meet the 'three assurances' or, for example, the person making the declaration does not have the capacity to make a trust, the trust will fail. This is clearly not the desired 'effect' and not the owner's intention.

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Trusts and Certyty of Intention

Different Types of Life Insurance Policies Available in India

Life insurance is one of the fastest growing financial service sector in India. Currently, there are 24 life insurance companies in India offering various kinds of life insurance policies with many benefits and riders. The main purpose of taking life insurance is to provide financial protection for the dependents of a person in case of his death.

There are some life insurance policies which have inbuilt wealth creation or investment plans along with insurance. Also, these products are offered as specific tailor-made products for different life stages like, child plans, retirement plans, pension plans etc. A few products offer loan facility along with the life insurance plan. Also, all life insurance premiums offer tax benefits to the insured, as per the Indian Income Tax Act.

Here under are different types of life insurance policies that are being offered in India.

Term insurance policy:
Term insurance offers financial protection for the family of the insured in case of his sudden demise. It is the cheapest life insurance policy that offers high sum assured at low cost. This policy provides insurance cover for a period of time. In India, almost all life insurance companies offer term insurance with different product names. The term policy will be usually available for 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. The policyholder does not get life cover after the completion of the term policy. Further, in India premium paid on term insurance is eligible for tax exemption under section 80C of Income Tax Act in India.

Money-back policy:
Under this policy, certain portion or percentage of the sum assured is returned back to the insured, in case of survival of policy holder. In the event of death during the period of the policy, the nominee of the policy gets death benefits equal to the sum secured and accumulated cash benefits. The premiums of money-back policy are very high compared to term insurance policy.

The money-back policies are offered for a fixed period of time, usually up to 25 years and the policyholder pays a fixed premium periodically (monthly, quarterly, annually) during the policy period. The premiums paid on money-back insurance policies are eligible for tax exemption under section 80C of Income Tax Act in India.

Whole life insurance policy:
As the name suggests, the policy covers risk for an entire life of the policyholder. This policy continues as long as the policy holder is alive. The policy offers only death benefits to the beneficiary or nominee in case of the death of the insured. This policy does not offer any survival benefits. So, the whole life insurance policy is primarily taken to create wealth for the heirs of the policyholders, as this policy offers payment of the sum assured plus bonus in the event of the death of the policyholder. The premiums of whole life insurance are costlier than term plans.

The policyholder pays premium for whole life or till some age (say 80 years) or for some period of 35-40 years based on the terms and conditions of the policy. The premium paid on whole-life insurance policies is eligible for tax exemption under section 80C of Income Tax Act in India.

Endowment insurance policy:
It is a savings linked insurance policy that provides cover for a specified period of time. The policy holder receives sum assured along with bonus or profits at the end of the policy in case of its survival. This policy is best for those people who do not have a savings or investing habit on a regular basis. In case of the death of the policy holder before the maturity of the policy, the beneficiary of the policy receives only the sum assured amount.

The premiums of the endowment policies in India are costlier than term life and whole life insurance premiums. Also, the premiums paid on endowment insurance policies are eligible for tax exemption under section 80C of Indian Income Tax Act.

Unit linked insurance policy (ULIP):
It is a special kind of investment tool combined with life insurance and serves as investment-linked insurance policy. In this policy, some part of the premiums goes into life cover and some part of the premium goes into investment.

The policy consists of investment mix where some percentage of the premium can go into 100% equity funds or 100% debt funds or a mixture of both. Here, the policyholder has an option of choosing funds or he can select the strategy of investing. The policyholder can also have the choice of switching from one fund to other fund. The returns from ULIPS are based only on the performance of the funds. The main drawback of ULIPs is that, it contains high charges (responsibilities) for managing funds.

In India, ULIPs allow you to claim tax benefits against the premium payment by two ways – deduction and exemption. You can deduct up to Rs.1 lakh of your taxable income by investing in ULIPs under section 80C of Indian Income Tax Act. You can exempt from gross income under section 10 (10) D for any sum received from insurance.

Insurance policies have a great role to play in assuring tax savings. As per the policy in India, all regular-premium life insurance policies (except pension plans) in India issued after April 2012, should offer protection cover of at least 10 times the annual income to be eligible for tax benefits under section 80C and 10 ( 10) D.

Choose and get a best life insurance policy to protect your family's financial condition in your absence.

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Different Types of Life Insurance Policies Available in India

The Fireman’s Rule – Law Prevents Firefighter From Suing For Injuries Received While Fighting Fire!

When I first heard the term, "The Fireman's Rule," I thought that I had obviously stumbled upon a rule of law that would be of benefit to firefighters through the country. What I learned after a couple of hours of research was that this rule of law was of no benefit to firefighters, but instead served to benefit the property owner / occupant who Negligent acts or omissions may have been the primary cause of injuries to a firefighter while Fighting a fire. In fact, the Fireman's Rule operates to bar a fireman from suing a property owner / occupant when the acts or omissions of the property owner / occupant caused or contributed to injuries the firefighter received while fighting a fire on the concessions of the owner / occupant.

The fireman's rule is a common law, and in some states statutory, based on a judiciously recognized public policy that encourages people to freely call the fire department for help without concern if they will be held liable to the firemen for injuries that are beyond their ability To control. In other words, the courts believe that a person should be able to call for help when their kitchen is on fire without worrying if a fireman will sue them if he is bitten by the family dog. The courts have held that these risks go along with the job.

In order to understand what the fireman's rule is and is not and how it operates, it is necessary to take a brief look at what the courts have been saying when deciding such cases. In one case, Whittenv v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority (Fla. 1978), the Florida Supreme Court explained the duty owed to a firefighter by the owner / occupant of the concessions which is the subject of the emergency. The Court ruled that a fireman has the legal status of a licensee, and as a licensee the only duty owed to a fireman was a duty not engaged in conduct that is considered to be either wanton (deliberate, without regard) or willful and / or To warn the fireman of any dangerous defect that is not open to the regular observation by a fireman.

As a basis for the fireman's rule, the Florida Supreme Court explained in Kilpatrick v. Sklar (Fla. 1989) that the fireman's rule is based on public policy. It purpose is to permit individuals who require fire department assistance to call for help without stopping to consider whether or not they will be held liable for any injuries to a firefighter which, in most cases, are beyond their control. In the Kilpatrick case the Court observed that firemen (and policemen) usually enter buildings and structures at unforeseeable times and under extreme emergency circumstances where most people do not have the time nor opportunity to prepare the concessions for their visit. And there should not be held responsible for any injuries that occur to the firefighters as a result.

Lastly, in Lanza v. Polanin 581 So.2d 130 (Fla. 1991) (cites other cases used in article) the Court noted that a firefighter who enters a house or dwelling does so without any guarantee that he will not find a bulldog waiting to bite him. These are dangers inherent in the job and caution should be exercised by the fireman since he is a trained professional. Again the Court emphasized that the policy behind the fireman's rule is to encourage people to call the fire department when needed by limiting the circumstances under which a person may be liable to the firefighter for injuries he may receive responding to and while fighting the fire, or Otherwise handling the emergency.

To summarize, the fireman's rule is a rule of law based on public policy which protects the owner / occupier of property from lawsuits by Firefighters for injuries which receive while on the promotions fighting a fire or handling an emergency. In other words, if you the firefighter are injured while fighting a fire, and you can prove that those injuries were caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the property owner / occupant, you will most likely be barred from recovery unless you can show that Such conduct that led to the injuries was willful or wanton or that the owner / occupant failed to warn of a danger known to exist. All of which is near impossible considering the unlimited variables present in a fire or other emergency. The fireman's rule is no friend of the fireman.

Michael Hendrich, JD FirehouseToday.com

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Fireman’s Rule – Law Prevents Firefighter From Suing For Injuries Received While Fighting Fire!