a▓▓▓▓▓ is ..

secret trusts...

http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/Courses/LA302_Equity_Trusts_and_Succession_1/LA302_secret.html

the Wills Act say that, to write a will u must do in writing n must got 2 ppl witness..

secret trust is to do something secret.. nobody can find out.. mainly is like u got a yi lai, or u got illegit kids..n u wana leave them some money after u die

got 2 type of secret trust.. full and half..today i wil write on full secret trust...

full secret trust is like..
wat others know : i give taka rm1k
wat actually agree : i give taka rm1k, so taka help me hold the 1k and then give to my yi lai after i die..

tis is becos, i don wan my gf to know that i give rm1k to my yi lai.. so i ask taka to help me quiet quiet hold this money to profit my yi lai lorrr..

but the problem with full secret trust is, wat happen if i give taka the money, but then that fucker run off with the money and didn't follow wat i say?

so if everyone supposingly know tat i give taka the money, but actually is i ask him to give to my yi lai, how am i supposed to get back the money from him??

so... i need to show evidence lorr.. that i ask taka to hold the money on trust for me..

"evidence can be oral or written, but must clearly show an intention to create a trust!"

in the case of Re Snowden.. got this girl and her bro.. the girl wana give the bro money for some 'purposes to carry out' la.. but she didn't communicate to him.. the bro also actually KNOW what the sis wan him to do lorr.. so one day the sister die.. but the faggot bro also die 6 days after the sis die, and din't carry out the sis' wishes..

so wat is the problem here? GOT.. fucking big problem.. u see.. everyone else know that supposingly the girl give the bro money.. but din't know tat he supposed to do something with the money la.. so if the bro die right.. the money will go to his estate (meaning his family.. wife.. kids.. watever lorr)

in this case right.. the judge.. name Megarry.. say tat the sis only impose a moral obligation.. not legal ... so it not enuf to prove tat there's an intention to set up a secret trust.. so the faggot brother get to keep the sister's money !!!

so back to my case.. if i din't show an intention to create the secret trust, the fucker will keep the money lorr.. knn!!!

____________________________________________

anyway here are some shit for me to read...

AirJamaicaVCharlton1999
Whether surplus funds of unincorporated association should be returned to the contributors on dissolution of the association
Yes, so long as they are readily ascertainable and the restitution scheme workable (but this decision may be out of line with Westdeutsche)

BaldryVFeintuck1972
Whether student union could be a CharitableTrust
Yes, so long as it did not allow its activities to stray into politics

BannisterVBannister1949
Whether absence of writing defeated claim that occupier was entitled to live in a house she had conveyed to a relative
No, because a constructive trust arose in her favour, to which s.53(1)(b) does not apply

BarclaysBankVQuistclose1970
Whether money loaned for a specific purpose should be repaid to the lender on the event of the recipient's insolvency
Yes, if it the loan was held separately and expressly intended to be used for a particular purpose, it would be deemed to be held on trust for the lender

BlackwellVBlackwell1929
Whether HalfSecretTrust was enforceable by the beneficiaries
In this case, no -- the trust terms were not communicated to the intended trustee before the will was executed

BlairVDuncan1901
Whether trust for ``public or charitable purpose'' a CharitableTrust
No -- not all public purposes will be charitable

BoyceVBoyce1849
Whether trust of three houses out of a possible four was valid
No -- the allocation of beneficial interest was uncertain (see CertaintyOfSubjectMatter)

BurtonVFXMusic19999
A ChoseInAction can be trust property

ChichesterDiocesanFundVSimpson1944
A trust for `charitable or benevolent purposes' is not a charity, because its purposes are not exclusively charitable

ConservativeCentralOfficeVBurrell1982
An unincorporated association is a group of individuals bound by mutual obligations to a common purpose

DingleVTurner1972
Whether trust to benefit ``poor employees'' was a CharitableTrust
Yes, as the test for `public benefit' is not strictly applied to a TrustForTheReliefOfPoverty

DyerVDyer1788
Whether a person acquires a beneficial interest in land by virtue of contributing to its purchase
Yes -- such a contribution would raise a ResultingTrust

FletcherVFletcher1884
Whether failed trust of property could be construed as a fully constituted trust of the right to the property
Yes -- the settlor's covenant to constitute the trust created a trust of a ChoseInAction, the benefit of which was to have the trust constituted (but see ReCook1965)

ICLRVAttorneyGeneral1971
Whether law reporting was a valid charitable object
Yes, on the basis that it was for the advancement of education (and some suggestion that any benefit to the general public was charitable)

IRCVBroadwayCottagesTrust1955
Whether there was CertaintyOfObjects to create a valid trust
No -- it must be possible to enumerate the potential beneficiaries (but see McPhailVDoulton1971)

IRCVEducationalGrantsLtd1976
Whether educational trust which, in practice, benefited primarily children of company directors was charitable
No -- the fact that the trust had a potential public benefit was of no help if the benefit, in practice, fell to the benefactor

IRCVGuild
The test for charitable status under the RecreationalCharitiesAct1958 is that the provision improves the conditions of life of the beneficiaries, whether or not they are disadvantaged

Knight v Knight
Defines the ThreeCertainties for creation of an express trust

JonesVLock1865
Whether putting cheque in the hands of an infant amounted to a gift or a trust
In this case, neither; it must be clear whether the settlor intended to make a gift or declare a trust

MauriceVBishopOfDurham1805
Whether trust for ``charitable or benevolent purposes was a CharitableTrust
No -- not all benevolent purposes are charitable

McGovernVAG1982
Whether a human rights organization could have charitable status
In this case, no -- the organization also had political objectives

McPhailVDoulton1971
Whether there was certainty of objects to create a valid trust
Yes, if there was a test that could distinguish beneficiaries from non-beneficiaries

MilroyVLord1862
Whether a failed gift could be interpreted as the creation of a trust
The court will not rescue a failed gift by treating it as a trust -- it must be clear whether the settlor intended a gift or a trust (but see ReRose1952)

NationalAntiVivisectionSocietyVIRC1948
Whether trust to educate public of the evils of animal experimentation was a CharitableTrust
Not in this case -- the organization's objectives were not those which the public, on balance, would find beneficial

NevilleVWilson1997
Whether oral contract to assign equitable interest in company shares was valid
Yes, in this case -- LPA1925 s.53(1)(c) does not apply to a constructive trust, and the oral assignment created such a trust

OppenheimVTobaccoSecuritiesTrustCo1951
Whether a trust to provide education to employees was a CharitableTrust
In this case, no -- being limited to employees there was no `public benefit'

OttawayVNorman1972
Oral instructions capable of creating a valid secret trust (even of land)

OughtredVIRC1960
Whether oral contract to assign equitable interest in company shares was valid
Yes, in this case -- LPA1925 s.53(1)(c) does not apply to a constructive trust, and the oral assignment created such a trust, but stamp duty was payable on the confirmatory document all the same

PalmerVSimmonds1854
Whether `bulk of my residuary estate' could amount to trust property
No, there must be certainty in the property that is to constitute the trust (see CertaintyOfSubjectMatter)

PaulVConstance1976
Whether trust created over joint bank account
The settlor need not specifically state that he is creating a trust, words to that effect and conduct will suffice

PemselsCase1891
This case the four categories of charitable purpose: relief of poverty, etc.

PullanVKoe1913
When trust was deemed to be consitituted by enforcement of a covenant to settle
At the moment the trust property became available to the settled, despite legal title not having been transferred

ReAbbott1900
Whether surplus of non-charitable benevolent fund should be returned to contributors
Yes -- a ResultingTrust was imposed on the legal owners of the fund

ReAstor1952
Whether trust for the promotion of journalism, etc., was valid
No -- this purpose was not charitable and not recognized as an anomalous valid PrivatePurposeTrust

ReBarlow1979
Whether a testamentory gift to ``friends of mine'' failed for uncertainty
No; it was possible to say of at least some people whether they were friends of the testatrix, even lacking a precise definition of `friend'

ReBrooksSettlementTrust1939
Whether transfer of property to a person with a covenant to settle automatically constitutes the trust for the beneficiaries of the covenant if the trustees in both transactions are the same
No -- the trustees are the same person, but in different roles

ReEllenborough1903
Whether trust of property expected to be inherited was properly constituted
No -- FutureProperty cannot be the subject matter of a trust

ReCavendishBrown1916
Covenantee of covenant to settle can sue on the covenant (although it is not clear whether successful suit would constitute the trust). This decision appears not to have been followed in Re Kay

ReCook1965
Principle of Fletcher should be restricted to covenants that give rise to a debt of money

ReEndacott1960
Whether a private purpose trust was valid
Although the law recongizes certain anomalous exceptions to the BeneficiaryPrinciple, the class of exceptions is now closed

ReGardnerNo21923
Whether estate of beneficiary of half-secret trust takes if the beneficiary predeceases the testator
Yes, in spite of the normal probate rules, because the trust takes effect outside the will

ReGillinghamBusDisasterFund1958
Whether surplus funds raised for non-charitable benevolent purpose should be returned to the contributors on completion of the purpose
Yes -- the surplus would be held on ResultingTrust (but see West Sussex and Westdeutsche_)

ReGrant1980
Re Denley probably cannot apply where the `trustee' is expressed to be an unincorporated association (but the gift failed anyway because the association could not dissolve, so the rule against perpetuities was broken)

ReGroveGrady1929
Whether trust for animal welfware was a CharitableTrust
In this case: no, although in general animal welfare is now recognized as a charitable objective. But there must be some benefit to humans, rather than none at all

ReGulbenkiansSettlements1970
Whether a power of appointment valid when complete lists of beneficiaries unknown
Yes, in this case, because it was possible to distinguish beneficiaries from non-beneficiaries

ReKay1939
Whether CovenantToSettle can be enforced at common law by trustee, of his own volition
No, because of a dubious analogy with Re Pryce

ReKayford1975
Whether money paid by customers to company created a trust in favour of the customer
In this case, yes; the money was held in separate accounts and there was clear intention to deal with it aside from the company's funds

ReKeen1937
Terms of fully-secret trust can be communicated at any time up until death of testator

ReLipinski1977
Property conveyed on trust for an unicorporated associated may be deemed to be on trust for its members for the time being, and therefore not infringe the RuleAgainstPerpetuities

ReLondonWine1975
Whether trust of a number wine bottles was valid
No -- the subject matter was uncertain; the trust bottles should have been segregated from the settlor's stock

ReManisty1973
Power of appointment can be void for capriciousness

ReNiyazi1978
Whether trust to provide working men's hostel in Cyprus was charitable on the basis of `relief of poverty'
In this case yes, although it was stated to be a borderline case

ReOsaba1979
Whether surplus in non-charitable trust should be assigned to beneficiary on completion of trust purpose
Yes, so long as the intention of the settlor can be construed this way

ReParadiseMotorCo1968
Disclaimer of an equitable interest does not amount to a `disposition' for the purposes of s.53(1)(c)

RePlumptresMarriageSettlement1910
Whether CovenantToSettle enforceable by next of kin of beneficiary
No -- as there had been no beneficiaries with standing to enforce the covenant, and the next of kin were volunteers (but see PullanVKoe1913)

ReRees1950
Whether solicitor who drafted will creating a HalfSecretTrust could be a beneficiary under the trust
No, because this would contradict the express intention of the will, which was to create a trust of the entire estate

ReRose1952
Wether trust of shares created despite legal formalities not completed
Yes, despite MilroyVLord1862, if the settlor has done everything he needs to effect the transfer

RePryce1917
Whether CovenantToSettle can be enforced at common law by trustee under direction from volunteer beneficiaries
No, because this would allow the beneficiaries to get an action through the trustees that they would not be entitled to in their own right

ReShaw1957
Whether trust to research a 40-letter alphabet was a CharitableTrust
No, it's education benefit was not clear

ReSnowden1979
The burden and standard of proof in claims that a secret trust existed
The person who wishes to assert the existence of the trust has the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities

ReSouthPlaceEthicalSociety1980
Whether ethical humanism was a `religion' for the purposes of establishing a CharitableTrust
No -- religion requires some kind of belief in a supreme being. However, this test is not always strictly applied

ReRallisWillTrust1964
Whether trust can be constituted by FortuitousVesting
Yes, but this trust would have been enforceable at the suit of the beneficiaries; remarks that fortuitous vesting alone can constitute a trust were obiter_

ReStead1900
Whether all trustees of a SecretTrust are bound, if the terms are not communicated to all of them
If the terms of the trust are communicated before the will is executed, all are bound. Otherwise trustees without communication are not bound

ReTuck1978
Whether CertaintyOfObjects in a will could be ensured by delegating a decision on Jewishness to the Chief rabbi
Yes, but the judgements do not entirely support the view that `Chief Rabbi clauses' are acceptable

ReWestSussexConstabularyWidowsFund1971
Whether contributors to benevolent fund entitled to refund of surplus money
Only where contributors had made specific legacies and could be readily identified

RVDistrictAuditorsExWestYorksCC1986
`Administrative unworkability' depends only on the size of the class, not capriciousness

RochefoucaultVBoustead1897
Whether fraudulently-induced declaration of trust can be enforced, despite not complying with formality requirements
In this case, yes -- a statute enacted to prevent fraud cannot be used to perpetrate a fraud

SinclairVBrougham1914
Whether ResultingTrust arose in favour of a claimant who had paid money under a void contract
Yes, where it was necessary to give a just outcome (but not followed by HL in Westdeutsche)

TimpsonsExecutorsVYerbury1935
Whether instruction to bank amounted to a `disposition' of an equitable interest
Disposition can be (i) direct assignment, (ii) direction to trustees, (iii) contract to assign, (iv) self-declaration of sub-trust

TitoVWaddellNo.21977
Whether fiduciary responsibility imposed on the Crown by the term `put in trust' in legislation
The term `held in trust' in legislation is not conclusive that a trust, in the strict sense, was intended

WestdeutscheVIslington1996
Whether ResultingTrust arose in favour of claimant who had paid money under a void contract
No -- the basis of a trust was conscience. A trust could not be imposed on the recipient unless he knew that a trust obligation was intended by the donor

WilliamsTrusteesVIRC1947
Trust not charitable if the benefit applies to a `class within a class; whether purpose beneficial to the community is charitable is determined from analogy with the preamble to the 1601 Act

ReYoung1951
Whether witness to will could be a beneficiary of a half-secret trust constituted by the will
Yes, despite the normal rules of probate, because the trust takes effect `outside' the will