DOCSLIB.ORG

Trust Language and Application by Trustees

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trust Language and Application by Trustees WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? TRUST LANGUAGE AND APPLICATION BY TRUSTEES PRESENTED BY: MARY C. BURDETTE CALLOWAY, NORRIS, BURDETTE & WEBER, PLLC. 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75219 WRITTEN BY: SARAH PATEL PACHECO1 Crain, Caton & James, P.C. 1401 McKinney, 17th Floor Houston, Texas 77010 STATE BAR OF TEXAS 35TH ANNUAL ADVANCED ESTATE PLANNING AND PROBATE COURSE JUNE 8-10, 2011 FORT WORTH, TEXAS (CHAPTER __) © Sarah Patel Pacheco 2009 i INDEX I. INTRODUCTION. ......................................................................................................................... 1 II. SOURCES OF GUIDANCE AND AUTHORITY ...................................................................... 1 A. The Pecking Order ................................................................................................................... 1 B. Binding Authority .................................................................................................................... 1 1. The Trust Instrument ........................................................................................................ 1 2. Texas Trust Code Section 101.001 et seq ........................................................................ 2 3. Texas Common Law ......................................................................................................... 2 C. Potential Sources of Guidance ................................................................................................. 2 1. Restatement of Trusts ....................................................................................................... 2 2. Uniform Trust Code ......................................................................................................... 2 III. FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES OF A TRUSTEE ............................................................... 2 A. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2 B. General Duties of a Trustee .......................................................................................... 2 C. Defining Standards of Conduct .................................................................................... 3 1. Bad Faith ............................................................................................................... 3 2. Good Faith ............................................................................................................ 3 3. Gross Negligence .................................................................................................. 3 D. Delegation of Duties .................................................................................................... 3 E. Burden of Proof at Trial ............................................................................................... 4 1. Burden on Complainant ........................................................................................ 4 2. Burden on Trustee ................................................................................................. 4 IV. FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERPRETING TRUST DOCUMENTS ........................... 4 A. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 4 B. Unambiguous Instrument ............................................................................................. 4 C. Ambiguous Instrument ................................................................................................. 5 1. Actions During Lifetime ....................................................................................... 5 2. Other Trusts Created by Settlor ............................................................................ 5 3. Context of the Creation of the Trust ..................................................................... 5 4. Framing the Issue: Overall Intent vs. Specific Intent ........................................... 5 D. Common Terms ............................................................................................................ 5 1. Shall Versus May .................................................................................................. 5 2. Necessary Versus Appropriate .............................................................................. 6 3. Absolute or Uncontrolled Discretion .................................................................... 6 4. Sole, Final or Conclusive Discretion .................................................................... 6 V. DISTRIBUTION STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 6 A. Mandatory Distributions .............................................................................................. 6 B. Discretionary Distributions .......................................................................................... 7 1. Ascertainable Standard ......................................................................................... 7 a. Tax Planning Considerations ........................................................................ 7 (i). Beneficiary as Trustee - Distributions to Self - Avoid Estate Tax Inclusion and Avoid Gift on Lapse ..................................................... 7 (ii). Beneficiary as Trustee – Avoids Loss of Spendthrift Protection ......... 7 (iii). Beneficiary as Trustee - Avoid Gift for Distributions to Others ......... 8 (iv). Settlor as Trustee - Avoid Estate Tax Inclusion .................................. 8 (v). Settlor or Settlor’s Spouse as Trustee - Income tax relevance ............. 8 b. “Support” and “Maintenance” ...................................................................... 8 (i). Bare Necessities ................................................................................... 9 © Sarah Patel Pacheco 2009 ii (ii). Educational Expenses .......................................................................... 9 (iii). Implied Standard of Living .................................................................. 9 (iv). Trust Size ............................................................................................. 9 (v). Present Versus Future Needs ............................................................... 9 c. Education .................................................................................................... 10 d. Health .......................................................................................................... 10 2. Unascertainable Standards .................................................................................. 10 a. Comfort ....................................................................................................... 10 b. Happiness .................................................................................................... 11 c. Welfare ........................................................................................................ 11 d. Benefit ......................................................................................................... 11 C. Drafting Suggestions .................................................................................................. 11 1. Marital Gifts ........................................................................................................ 11 2. Non-Marital Gifts ............................................................................................... 11 3. All Trusts ............................................................................................................ 12 4. Purposes Clauses ................................................................................................. 12 VI. POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS ON DISTRIBUTION STANDARDS ........................ 12 A. Standard of Living - Station in Life ........................................................................... 12 B. Other Resources ......................................................................................................... 12 1. General Rule ....................................................................................................... 12 2. Restatement Exceptions ...................................................................................... 12 a. Other Trusts Created By Same Settlor ........................................................ 12 b. Beneficiary Not Intended to Be Self Supporting ........................................ 12 3. What Other Resources? ...................................................................................... 12 4. Affect on Ascertainable Standard ....................................................................... 13 C. Priority of Beneficiaries ............................................................................................. 13 1. Settlor’s Intent Controls ...................................................................................... 13 2. Guidelines Under Texas Trust Code When No Expression of Intent ................. 13 3. Guidelines Under Restatement When No Expression of Intent ......................... 13 D. Parents Obligation To Support Beneficiary ............................................................... 14 E. Beneficiary’s Obligation To Support Family Members ............................................. 14 F. Other Relevant Factors ............................................................................................... 15 VII. POWER TO ADJUST INCOME AND PRINCIPAL ................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • Text and Time: a Theory of Testamentary Obsolescence
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 86 Issue 3 2009 Text and Time: A Theory of Testamentary Obsolescence Adam J. Hirsch Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Adam J. Hirsch, Text and Time: A Theory of Testamentary Obsolescence, 86 WASH. U. L. REV. 609 (2009). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol86/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEXT AND TIME: A THEORY OF TESTAMENTARY OBSOLESCENCE ADAM J. HIRSCH∗ Events may occur after a will is executed that ordinarily give rise to changes of intent regarding the estate plan—yet the testator may take no action to revoke or amend the original will. Should such a will be given literal effect? When, if ever, should lawmakers intervene to update a will on the testator's behalf? This is the problem of testamentary obsolescence. It reflects a fundamental, structural problem in law that can also crop up with regard to constitutions, statutes, and other performative texts, any one of which may become timeworn. This Article develops a theoretical framework for determining when lawmakers should—and should not—step in to revise wills that testators have left unaltered and endeavors to locate this framework in the context of other forms of textual obsolescence.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Title out of a Trust
    GETTING TITLE OUT OF A TRUST Prepared by Ward P. Graham, Esq. Vice President, Region H Counsel Stewart Title Guaranty Company For 2002 Stewart Title Guaranty Company Agency Seminar A. INTRODUCTION For purposes of this seminar, we’re going to deal with issues involving getting title out of express trusts, i.e., those created by some form of instrument. We won’t be discussing trusts arising or imposed by operation of law, such as constructive trusts and resulting trusts. Nor will we get into the world of charitable trusts or the statutory custodial-type trusts dealt with in G.L. Chapters 201C and 203B. What we will be discussing are the two basic types of trusts that you are most likely to see in your conveyancing practice, testamentary trusts (created by the will of a decedent) and inter vivos trusts under written agreements or “declarations”. Included among the latter, for purposes of our discussion relating to taking title to real estate out of a trust, are revocable trusts, irrevocable trusts and so-called “nominee” trusts (most commonly containing the words “Realty Trust” in their name and being the most common form of trust used for real estate title holding purposes). But first, let’s start with some of the basics of trust law. B. CREATION OF TRUSTS 1. The Primary Relationship: Trustee and Beneficiary. 1 To begin with, for our purposes, “No trust concerning land, except such as may arise or result by implication of law, shall be created or declared unless by a written instrument signed by the party creating or declaring the trust or by his attorney.” G.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose Trusts As a Planning Tool for the 21St Century Thomas E
    University of South Dakota School of Law From the SelectedWorks of Thomas E. Simmons September 8, 2019 Purpose Trusts as a Planning Tool for the 21st Century Thomas E. Simmons Brad Myers Available at: https://works.bepress.com/tom_simmons/71/ Sunday Session III: Purpose Trusts as a Planning Tool for the 21st Century 1 – Myers & Simmons Purpose Trusts as a Planning Tool for the 21st Century Bradley Myers is the Associate Dean for Administration and the Randy H. Lee Professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law. He became a Fellow of the American College of Trust & Estate Counsel in 2017. Governor Hoeven named him one of North Dakota’ Commissioners to the Uniform Law Commission in 2007 and has served on several drafting committees for Uniform Acts in the Trusts & Estates area. Professor Myers joined faculty at the University of North Dakota in 2001 and teaches Federal Income Taxation, Business Entities Taxation Trusts and Estates, Estate Planning. Professor Myers formerly practiced law in the states of Nevada, California and Oregon, with his practice focused primarily in tax, business and estate planning with a special focus on the issues surrounding the development of low-income housing. Professor Myers received BS and MS degrees in Kinesiology from the University of California, Los Angeles. He then spent two years at the University of California, Davis, doing post-graduate research in avian respiratory control. Professor Myers received his J.D. from the University of Oregon. He served on the editorial staff of the Oregon Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code
    D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY UNIFORM TRUST CODE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MARCH 10, 2000 INTERIM DRAFT UNIFORM TRUST CODE WITHOUT PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. UNIFORM TRUST CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. ............................................................ 1 SECTION 102. SCOPE. ................................................................... 1 SECTION 103. DEFINITIONS. ............................................................. 1 SECTION 104. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. ...................................... 4 SECTION 105. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES. ............................................... 5 SECTION 106. NOTICE. .................................................................. 5 SECTION 107. COMMON LAW OF TRUSTS. ................................................ 6 SECTION 108. CHOICE OF LAW. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Discretionary Distributions, 26Th Annual Estate Planning
    DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTIONS Given By Frank N. Ikard, Jr. Ikard & Golden, P.C. Austin, Texas Advanced Estate Planning and Probate Course 2002 June 5-7, 2002 Dallas, Texas CHAPTER 40 FRANK N. IKARD, JR. IKARD & GOLDEN, P.C. Attorney at Law 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 472-2884 EDUCATION: - University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1968 - University of the South and University of Texas, B.A., 1965 - Phi Alpha Delta PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: Board Certified, Estate Planning and Probate Law, Texas Board of Legal Specialization American Bar Association, Real Property Probate and Trust Law Section, Estate and Trust Litigation and Controversy Committee American College of Trust and Estate Council, Fellow 1979 - present Member, Fiduciary Litigation Committee; Chairman, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Subcommittee Greater Austin Crime Commission, 1999 - present Board of Director, 2000 - 2001 Real Property Probate and Trust Law Section -American Bar Association, Estate and Trust Litigation Committee; Continuing Legal Education Subcommittee Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law Section, State Bar of Texas, Member and Past Chairman; Past member of the Trust Code Committee and Legislative Committee Texas Academy of Real Estate, Probate and Trust Lawyers, Co-Founder and Member Board of Directors, Texas Bar Foundation, Fellow 1991 - present Travis County Bar Association, Estate Planning and Probate Section The Best Lawyers in America, 1993-2000 Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference, 1983 SPEECHES AND PUBLICATIONS: Specialty Drafting Regarding the Fiduciary, Travis County Bar Association, Probate and Estate Planning Seminar, March 2001 Fiduciary Duties: What are They and How to Modify Them, Texas Banker’s Association Estate Administration Seminar, October 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIAL NEEDS TRUSTS: What Every Estate Planning Professional Needs to Know Bernard A
    2013 NAEPC Webinar SPECIAL NEEDS TRUSTS: What Every Estate Planning Professional Needs To Know Bernard A. Krooks, JD, CPA, LL.M, CELA, AEP Littman Krooks LLP www.littmankrooks.com Special Needs Trusts Third Party SNT D(4)(A) SNT D(4)(c)SNT ©2013 Special Needs Trust ◦(d)(4)(A) trust ◦First-party trust ◦Payback trust ©2013 1 SSDI ◦ Unable to do any substantial gainful activity due to disability Medicare Special Ed VA Means tested ◦ Medicaid ◦ SSI ©2013 Created with the assets or income of an individual with disabilities under age 65 Inheritance PI lawsuit Matrimonial action ◦ Established by the individual’s parent, grandparent, legal guardian or court ©2013 No SSI or Medicaid penalty period Disregarded as available income or resource Medicaid payback ©2013 2 Protects resources without sacrificing government benefits Irrevocable trust Wholly discretionary trust Individual with disabilities must be sole beneficiary while alive ©2013 State law Amendments Asset protection SNT Compensation to caregiver Insurance on life of family caregiver Family visitation ©2013 Reimbursement is only for Medicaid, not all public benefits Reimbursement is based on actual Medicaid expenditures, not prevailing market costs No interest Some services not readily available in the private market ©2013 3 Created and managed by non-profit association May be established by the individual Separate accounts maintained for the benefit of individuals with disabilities (d)(4)(C) trust Modified payback provision ©2013 Non-profit 501(C)(3) organization as trustee Must be irrevocable Beneficiary may be any age Medicaid asset transfer issue after age 65 Often used in smaller cases ©2013 Accept the money Spend down Gift Self settled SNT Pooled trust ©2013 4 Incomplete gift ◦ Creditors’ claims ◦ Sole benefit ◦ Limited POA Grantor trust Estate tax inclusion ◦ Medicaid payback deduction ©2013 No payback requirement ◦ Can direct corpus at death of beneficiary to any individual No age limit Third-party SNT ◦ Testamentary trust ◦ Inter-vivos trust Revocable v.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code Final Act with Comments
    UNIFORM TRUST CODE (Last Revised or Amended in 2010) Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINTH YEAR ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA JULY 28 – AUGUST 4, 2000 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000, 2010 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS April 10, 2020 1 ABOUT NCCUSL The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 114th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. Conference members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. $ NCCUSL strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. $ NCCUSL statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. $ NCCUSL keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. $ NCCUSL’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Needs Trust Comment: This Is an Irrevocable Inter Vivos Trust for the Benefit of the Settlor's Disabled Child. It Is
    Special Needs Trust Comment: This is an irrevocable inter vivos trust for the benefit of the settlor's disabled child. It is designed to provide the maximum benefits to the child without threatening eligibility for Medicaid or other public programs. This Form assumes immediate funding of the trust. THE ______________________ [Name of Beneficiary] IRREVOCABLE TRUST ARTICLE I. AGREEMENT This Trust Agreement is made this ________ [date] ________ day of ________ [month, year], by ________ [Name of Settlor], of ________ [address], as Settlor, and ________ [Name of Trustee] of ________ [address], as Trustee. This is an irrevocable trust for the benefit of Settlor's ________ [indicate relationship], of ________ [address]. Settlor declares that ________ [he/she] has transferred to the Trustee, without consideration, the property described in Schedule A attached to this instrument. The Trustee hereby agrees to hold that property and any other property of the trust estate, in trust, on the terms set forth in this instrument. It is Settlor's desire, by this instrument, to create an inter vivos irrevocable trust, in accordance with the laws of the State of ________ [indicate State], whereby the property placed in trust shall be managed for the benefit of ________ [Name of Beneficiary] during ________ [his/her] lifetime and distributed to the beneficiary named herein upon the death of ________ [Name of Beneficiary]. ARTICLE II. INTRODUCTION The intent of this Trust is to supplement any benefits received (or for which ________ [Name of Beneficiary] may be eligible) through or from various governmental assistance programs and not to supplant any such benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Trustee Liability for Spendthrift Trust Assignments
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 18 | Issue 2 Article 12 Fall 9-1-1961 Trustee Liability For Spendthrift rT ust Assignments Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Trustee Liability For Spendthrift rT ust Assignments, 18 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 283 (1961), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol18/iss2/12 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i96i] CASE COMMENTS TRUSTEE LIABILITY FOR SPENDTHRIFT TRUST ASSIGNMENTS The once highly controversial issue concerning the validity of the spendthrift trust is no longer open, except in a very few American jurisdictions.' Support for the view favoring such trusts has been the argument that one owning property ought to be able to dispose of it as he sees fit, and except in a small minority of jurisdictions,2 either by statute3 or by decision, 4 a spendthrift trust has been held valid. Moreover, this particular trust device appears to be one that is becoming more and more regulated by statute.5 In fact many of the jurisdictions upholding the validity of the spendthrift trust have done so because of the validity of restraints on the alienation of equitable interests such as those appearing in spendthrift trusts.
    [Show full text]
  • Estate Planning
    Estate Planning: Wills and Trusts: The Basics Estate Planning Webinar Series • Powers of Attorney & Medical Directives • Why I Should Have An Estate Plan • Wills and Trusts - The Basics: Wills and Trusts, the differences and execution requirements. The webinar will also provide an overview as to why a trust may be necessary. • All presentations can be found at www.brouse.com 2 Estate Planning Blog For additional information, see https://www.brouse.com/trusts-estates-blog 3 Disclaimer • Any opinions offered are our own and not those of Brouse McDowell LPA. This presentation is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. No information contained in this presentation is to be construed as legal advice. This presentation is not a contract for legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. • Entering into an attorney-client relationship is a mutual agreement, requiring the exchange of information and the execution of an engagement letter between the client and Brouse McDowell LPA. 4 INTRODUCTION Wills and Trusts: The Basics What’s Important to You? 6 Estate Planning is for people 7 Estate Planning is for property 8 You need the proper Documents 9 What Are Estate Planning Documents? -Durable Power of Attorney -Health Care Power of Attorney and Living Will -Last Will and Testament -Trust 10 WHY DO I NEED A WILL AND/OR TRUST? Essential Documents: Last Will and Testament Last Will and Testament- Your Last Will and Testament provides for the distribution of your probate assets, nomination of a guardian for your minor children and designates an Executor who is responsible for finalizing your estate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functions of Trust Law: a Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 73 N.Y.U
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1998 The uncF tions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis Ugo Mattei UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Ugo Mattei, The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 434 (1998). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/529 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Faculty Publications UC Hastings College of the Law Library Mattei Ugo Author: Ugo Mattei Source: New York University Law Review Citation: 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 434 (1998). Title: The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis Originally published in NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW. This article is reprinted with permission from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW and New York University School of Law. THE FUNCTIONS OF TRUST LAW: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS HENRY HANSMANN* UGO MATTEI** In this Article, ProfessorsHenry Hansmann and Ugo Mattei analyze the functions served by the law of trusts and ask, first, whether the basic tools of contract and agency law could fulfill the same functions and, second, whether trust law provides benefits that are not provided by the law of corporations.
    [Show full text]