Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
The Rule in Shelley's Case is a rule of law that may apply to certain future interests in real property and trusts created in common law jurisdictions. [1]: 181 It was applied as early as 1366 in The Provost of Beverly's Case [1]: 182 [2] but in its present form is derived from Shelley's Case (1581), [3] in which counsel stated the rule as follows:
In a person's making of their own trusts, provisions and settlements, to newly proposed founded bodies or groups of persons, there are commonly still laws against perpetuities, preventing their "dead hand" from prevailing more than, for example, 80 years away and there is the common law rule in Saunders v Vautier enabling all of the adult ...
Thus, it must be created in a state that either has no rule against perpetuities, such as Delaware or South Dakota, or has a very long perpetuities period, such as in Nevada (365 years) or Wyoming (1,000 years). [2] Dynasty trusts in the United States were created as a reaction to the imposition of the generation-skipping transfer tax on trusts ...
[1] [2] In some jurisdictions, a trust for the saying of masses may be allowed. [1] The name of the device derives from the lack of any beneficiary legally capable of enforcing an honorary trust: the trustee is bound by honor, but not by law, to carry out the wishes of the creator of the trust.
In trust law, an express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." [ 1 ] Property is transferred by a person (called a trustor, settlor , or grantor) to a transferee (called the trustee ), who holds the property for the benefit ...
In addition, the courts have recognised exceptions to the rules against purpose trusts. The erection and maintenance of tombs and monuments is a valid trust, as in Musset v Bingle; [17] this will not be held valid if the gift violates the perpetuity rule, or if the scale of the monument is "capricious and wasteful". [18]
The most infamous example would be beneficiaries who clamor against the trustee to "bust the trust" based on the strict limits the trust (or the trustee) may impose on the trust assets. In many of these cases, the UTC provides beneficiaries (and trustees) relief to provide the flexibility needed to dispose of trust property under certain rules.