DOCSLIB.ORG

The Annotated Will 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE ANNOTATED WILL 2017 chairs Susannah Roth, TEP O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers Mary-Alice Thompson, C.S., TEP Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP January 12, 2017 *CLE17-0010401-A-PUB* DISCLAIMER: This work appears as part of The Law Society of Upper Canada’s initiatives in Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It provides information and various opinions to help legal professionals maintain and enhance their competence. It does not, however, represent or embody any official position of, or statement by, the Society, except where specifically indicated; nor does it attempt to set forth definitive practice standards or to provide legal advice. Precedents and other material contained herein should be used prudently, as nothing in the work relieves readers of their responsibility to assess the material in light of their own professional experience. No warranty is made with regards to this work. The Society can accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions, and expressly disclaims any such responsibility. © 2017 All Rights Reserved This compilation of collective works is copyrighted by The Law Society of Upper Canada. The individual documents remain the property of the original authors or their assignees. The Law Society of Upper Canada 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON M5H 2N6 Phone: 416-947-3315 or 1-800-668-7380 Ext. 3315 Fax: 416-947-3991 E-mail: [email protected] www.lsuc.on.ca Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication The Annotated Will 2017 ISBN 978-1-77094-402-2 (Hardcopy) ISBN 978-1-77094-403-9 (PDF) THE ANNOTATED WILL 2017 Chairs: Susannah Roth, TEP O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers Mary-Alice Thompson, C.S., TEP Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP Presenters: Darren Lund Fasken Martineau LLP Jane Martin Dickson Appell LLP January 12, 2017 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Total CPD Hours = 2 h 30 m Substantive + 30 m Professionalism The Law Society of Upper Canada 130 Queen Street West Toronto, ON SKU CLE17-00104 Agenda 9:00 a.m. – 9:05 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks 9:05 a.m. – 9:20 a.m. Retainer and Reporting Letters (15 minutes) 1 9:20 a.m. – 9:35 a.m. Drafting for Clarity 9:35 a.m. – 9:40 a.m. Question and Answer Period 9:40 a.m. – 9:55 a.m. Building a Precedent Library 9:55 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Meshing not Messing Multiple Wills 10:15 a.m. – 10:25 a.m. Question and Answer Period 10:25 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Coffee and Networking Break 10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. How to Avoid a Vacancy – Executors, Successors and Replacements 11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. GRE and Charitable Donation Rules 11:15 a.m. – 11:20 a.m. Question and Answer Period 11:20 a.m. – 11:35 a.m. End Clauses: Trustee Powers and Administrative Clauses 11:35 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. Executions When the Will-Maker is Challenged (15 minutes) 11:50 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Question and Answer Period 12:00 p.m. Program Ends 2 This program qualifies for the 2018 LAWPRO Risk Management Credit Premium Credit What is the LAWPRO Risk Management credit program? The LAWPRO Risk Management Credit program pays you to participate in certain CPD programs. For every LAWPRO-approved program you take between September 16, 2016 and September 15, 2017, you will be entitled to a $50 premium reduction on your 2018 insurance premium (to a maximum of $100 per lawyer). Completing 3 new modules of the Online COACHING Centre or one Members Assistance Program e-Course from Homewood Health also qualifies for the credit.** Access the OCC at www.practicepro.ca/occ and Homewood Health at www.myassistplan.com Why has LAWPRO created the Risk Management Credit? LAWPRO believes it is critical for lawyers to incorporate risk management strategies into their practices, and that the use of risk management tools and strategies will help reduce claims. Programs that include a risk management component and have been approved by LAWPRO are eligible for the credit. How do I qualify for the LAWPRO Risk Management Credit? Attendance at a qualifying CPD program will NOT automatically generate the LAWPRO Risk Management Credit. To receive the credit on your 2018 invoice, you must complete the online Declaration Form. STEP 1: STEP 2: Attend an approved program in person or via webcast; and/or Complete the online Declaration form at Self-study a past approved program; and/or www.lawpro.ca/RMdec by Sept. 15, 2017. The Complete 3 new modules on the Online credit will automatically appear on your 2018 COACHING Centre* and/or invoice. Completing a Homewood Health e-Course* You are eligible for the Risk Management Credit if you chair or speak at a qualifying program provided you attend the entire program. You can claim credit for an approved program on an archived webcast, CD-ROM, audio tape or video replay, provided you watch or listen to the entire program and have a copy of the program materials. In this case, you should claim credit for a self-study review on the CPD declaration form. Where can I access a list of qualifying programs? See a list of approved programs at www.lawpro.ca/RMcreditlist Whom do I contact for more information? Contact practicePRO by e-mail: [email protected] or call 416-598-5899 or 1-800-410-1013. *Three modules of the Online Coaching Centre courses can be redeemed for one $50 credit once per year. In addition, one Homewood Health e-Course is eligible for the credit on a yearly basis. THE ANNOTATED WILL 2017 Speaker Biographies January 12, 2017 Darren G. Lund, Associate, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto T: 416 868 3522, F: 416 364 7813, E: [email protected] Darren Lund is a member of the Trust, Wills, Estates and Charities Group in the firms Toronto office. Darren has expertise in a broad range of estate planning matters, including multiple wills, inter vivos trusts, disability planning, estate freezing, and planning for beneficiaries and assets outside Canada. Darren advises trustees and beneficiaries on all aspects of estate administration, both contentious and non-contentious, and his experience includes passing of fiduciary accounts, trust variations, post-mortem tax planning, and administering the Canadian estates of non-residents. He also speaks and writes on a variety of related topics such as estate planning for spouses and couples, inheriting overseas property and estate planning for persons with disabilities. He previously practised estates law at a large national law firm. Areas of Practice Recent Presentations Trusts, Wills, Estates and Charities “Effective Use of Inter Vivos Trusts”, Strategic Estate Planning Considerations, Ontario Bar Taxation Association, September 30, 2016 Estate Litigation Intergenerational Property Transactions, 13th Annual Real Estate Law Summit, Law Society Personal Tax Planning & of Upper Canada - April 21, 2016 Wealth Management Buying or Selling property from an Estate - Practice Gems Title and Off-Title Searching 2016, Education Law Society of Upper Canada - January 14, 2016 JD, 2002 The Modern LGBT Family: Parenthood, the Workplace and LGBT Estate Planning, Fasken University of Toronto Martineau Pride Network - June 11, 2015 MA, Political Science, 1995 Practice Tips for Effectively Serving Senior Clients, Mutual Fund Dealers Association University of Toronto National Seniors Summit - October 16, 2013 BA (Hons), Political Science and French Language & Estate Planning for Spouses & Couples (and Related Litigation Issues), Federated Press Tax Literature, 1994 Planning for the Wealthy Family Conference - September 12, 2013 University of Western Ontario Estate Planning & Administration for Persons with Disabilities - More Than Just a Henson Trust, Institute of Law Clerks of Ontario, 23rd Annual Conference - May 10, 2013 Called to the Bar Recent Publications Ontario, 2003 The New Qualified Disability Trust Journal - Personal Tax and Estate Planning Journal - Volume V, No. 3 Ontario’s New Estate Information Return - Personal Tax and Estate Planning Journal - Volume V, No. 2 - 2015 Associate Editor, National Table of Concordance (Ontario) Estates & Trusts, a joint publication of the Canadian Bar Association and Carswell Memberships and Affiliations Member-at-Large, Ontario Bar Association, Estates & Trusts Section Executive, and Co- Chair of Statutory Review Committee Member, Canadian Bar Association, Estates & Trusts, Charity & Not-for-Profit Sections Member, Estate Planning Council of Toronto JANE E. MARTIN, DICKSON APPELL Jane specializes her practice in estate planning, administration, and conflict resolution after working in a community mental health agency with clients and their families facing serious mental illnesses and disabilities. She assists families make decisions, develop plans, and implement solutions - whether developing their own estate plans, caring for aging or disabled relatives, administering their family’s plans or resolving conflict over estate and power of attorney administration. Jane applies her experience and compassion to her mediation practice, using her training in interest-based mediation to facilitate the resolution of estate and capacity law disputes. She is a frequent speaker and writer for public legal education events and professional programs. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Ontario Bar Association, Trusts & Estates Section Chair 2015-16; Canadian Bar Association Toronto Lawyers Association EDUCATION AND YEAR OF CALL Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2004 LL.B. Osgoode Hall Law School, 2003 B.A. University of Toronto, 1993 Executive Certificate in Conflict Management, University of Windsor Faculty of Law, 2015 Certificate, Negotiation and Leadership Program, Harvard Law School, 2015. Certificate, Mediating Disputes, Harvard Law School, 2016. Susannah B. Roth, O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers 416-363-6669 [email protected] Susannah is a partner at O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers, practicing in the areas of wills, trusts and estates, including all aspects of estate planning, estate administration and estate litigation, as well as estate real estate conveyancing and title rectification.
Recommended publications
  • Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws

    Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 26 Issue 4 Article 6 1999 Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws Adam J. Hirsch [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam J. Hirsch, Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws, 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 913 (2017) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol26/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW TRUSTS FOR PURPOSES: POLICY, AMBIGUITY, AND ANOMALY IN THE UNIFORM LAWS Adam J. Hirsch VOLUME 26 SUMMER 1999 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Adam J. Hirsch, Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws, 26 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 913 (1999). TRUSTS FOR PURPOSES: POLICY, AMBIGUITY, AND ANOMALY IN THE UNIFORM LAWS* ADAM J. HIRSCH** I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 913 II. SCOPE AND EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................. 915 III. PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 923 IV. DURATION OF TRUSTS ...........................................................................................
  • Purpose Trusts As a Planning Tool for the 21St Century Thomas E

    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.
  • 1 Builders Risk Insurance

    1 Builders Risk Insurance

    BUILDERS RISK INSURANCE: Utilizing Builder’s Risk Policies to Help Settle Construction Defect Cases Finding the Oasis in the Desert Gregory N. Ziegler Rebecca M. Alcantar Katherine K. Valent MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C. I. What is Builder’s Risk insurance? Builder’s risk insurance is a unique form of first-party property insurance that typically covers a structure under construction, the materials and equipment used in construction, and the removal of debris of covered property damaged by a covered loss. Builder’s risk insurance policies are typically purchased by the project general contractor or the owner. It is sometimes called “course of construction” coverage because it is only intended to apply during the course of construction, erection, and fabrication of a structure until the construction is considered completed. Coverage typically commences on the “start date” of the project and ends when the work is completed. i. Who is covered? Builder’s risk policies cover the interests of owners, contractors, subcontractors and others involved in the construction project. While contractors and subcontractors are typically covered, it’s a good idea for contractors and subcontractors to request being named insureds on the policy. In comparison, liability insurance covers damage to third parties, such as passersby injured by construction or for damage to adjoining property. ii. What does it cover? Typically, it is written on an “all risks basis” and covers direct physical loss from all causes except those specifically excluded. This does not mean it covers everything, so it is important to look at the exclusions. Although it is typically limited to the construction site, an insured can request coverage for property stored off site and in-transit.
  • Beyond Unconscionability: the Case for Using "Knowing Assent" As the Basis for Analyzing Unbargained-For Terms in Standard Form Contracts

    Beyond Unconscionability: the Case for Using "Knowing Assent" As the Basis for Analyzing Unbargained-For Terms in Standard Form Contracts

    Beyond Unconscionability: The Case for Using "Knowing Assent" as the Basis for Analyzing Unbargained-for Terms in Standard Form Contracts Edith R. Warkentinet I. INTRODUCTION People who sign standard form contracts' rarely read them.2 Coun- sel for one party (or one industry) generally prepare standard form con- tracts for repetitive use in consecutive transactions.3 The party who has t Professor of Law, Western State University College of Law, Fullerton, California. The author thanks Western State for its generous research support, Western State colleague Professor Phil Merkel for his willingness to read this on two different occasions and his terrifically helpful com- ments, Whittier Law School Professor Patricia Leary for her insightful comments, and Professor Andrea Funk for help with early drafts. 1. Friedrich Kessler, in a pioneering work on contracts of adhesion, described the origins of standard form contracts: "The development of large scale enterprise with its mass production and mass distribution made a new type of contract inevitable-the standardized mass contract. A stan- dardized contract, once its contents have been formulated by a business firm, is used in every bar- gain dealing with the same product or service .... " Friedrich Kessler, Contracts of Adhesion- Some Thoughts About Freedom of Contract, 43 COLUM. L. REV. 628, 631-32 (1943). 2. Professor Woodward offers an excellent explanation: Real assent to any given term in a form contract, including a merger clause, depends on how "rational" it is for the non-drafter (consumer and non-consumer alike) to attempt to understand what is in the form. This, in turn, is primarily a function of two observable facts: (1) the complexity and obscurity of the term in question and (2) the size of the un- derlying transaction.
  • Tracing Is a Process Not a Remedy

    Tracing Is a Process Not a Remedy

    Tracing - Scenario 1(b): Trustee Mixes Trust Money - Tracing is a process not a remedy. With His Own In His Account, subsequently - It allows us to identify a new asset as the purchases property with some money in the substitute for the old (Foskett v McKeown). account, then exhausts remaining money. - Tracing follows the value of the beneficiaries - SOLUTION: Re Oatway: We get an property, not the property itself (following). exception to the rule in Hallett’s estate: if the wrongdoer purchased assets which still exist, Distinguishing Tracing; Following & Claiming then it is presumed that he did so with the - Following is the process of following the same stolen money and the beneficiaries are asset as it moves from hand to hand. entitled to the assets. - Claiming refers to the process of recovering property, or the substitute for that property (This - Scenario 1(c): Trustee Mixes Money With His refers to the Barnes v Addy; knowing receipt, Own In His Account, and makes payment in knowing assistance doctrine - MUST and out of that account. CONSIDER THIS AFTER TRACING). - SOLUTION: Lofts v McDonald: Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule: trust cannot claim more than the lowest intermediate balance Tracing at Common Law - credited to the wrongdoer’s bank account Tracing is not unique to equity, however at CL it - If it went up from the lowest point, that is requires that the property you are tracing is not the trust’s money. identifiable, giving rise to problems with banks. - - Although you are deprived of a proprietary Equity has developed rules for identifying remedy, not personal remedies.
  • Comparison of Trust Laws Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands

    Comparison of Trust Laws Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands

    Comparison of Trust Laws Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands Preface This publication has been prepared for the assistance of anyone who is considering establishing a trust under the laws of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands. It deals in broad terms with the requirements of the respective laws. It is not intended to be exhaustive but merely to provide general information to our clients and their professional advisers. We recommend that our clients seek legal advice in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Island on their specific proposals before taking any steps to implement them. Conyers Dill & Pearman Bermuda British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands GENERAL Principal legislation Trustee Act 1975 Trustee Act (“TA”) The Trusts Law (2017 Revision). Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 Virgin Islands Special Trusts Act 2003 The Fraudulent Dispositions Law (1996 (“TSPA”) (“VISTA”) Revision) Perpetuities and Accumulations Act The Perpetuities Law (1999 Revision) 1989 Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 Ultimate court of Privy Council Privy Council Privy Council appeal OECD List White list White list White list Hague Convention Ratified and implemented Ratified and implemented Not ratified Perpetuity period The rule against perpetuities has been 100 years 150 years for ordinary trusts; the rule for private trusts abolished or disapplied for all trusts against perpetuities does not apply to created after 1 August 2009. STAR trusts. SETTLOR RESERVED POWERS Bermuda British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands s.2(3) TSPA: s. 2 (4) TA: The reservation by the s.14 Trusts Law: settlor of certain rights and powers … The reservation by the settlor of certain Settlor may reserve or grant power to: are not necessarily inconsistent with rights and powers … are not necessarily the existence of a trust.
  • Uniform Trust Code Final Act with Comments

    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.
  • Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal

    Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal

    ROUNDS.FINAL.DOCX 5/28/2013 3:43 PM QUINNIPIAC PROBATE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 26 2013 NUMBER 3 OLD DOCTRINE MISUNDERSTOOD, NEW DOCTRINE MISCONCEIVED: DECONSTRUCTING THE NEWLY- MINTED RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY’S POWER OF APPOINTMENT SECTIONS CHARLES E. ROUNDS, JR.* Abstract The United States Constitution is quickening into an organism with common law attributes, while state common law as enhanced by equity, once a principles-based regime, is suffocating under the weight of layer upon layer of partial, hyper-technical codifications. Major players in the codification movement are the Uniform Law Commis- sion and The American Law Institute. The latter drafts model stat- utes, while the former drafts legislation, that, when enacted into law by the states, partially codifies or fills perceived gaps in assorted cor- ners of state common law, as that body of law has been enhanced by equity. The Institute doctrinally supports the Commission’s efforts via the serial revision of myriad law restatements. Coordinating the entire codification process is a small cadre of academics, some of whom are non-practicing lawyers. One influential cadre member in- volved in the crafting of the power of appointment sections of the new- ly-minted Restatement (Third) of Property (Wills and Other Donative Transfers), for example, has had minimal experience practicing in the areas of the law he would presume to reform.1 Those sections are the * Charles E. Rounds, Jr., a tenured professor at Suffolk University Law School, is the lead author of the last nineteen editions of LORING AND ROUNDS: A TRUSTEE’S HANDBOOK. The first edition was published by Augustus Peabody Loring in 1898.
  • Good Faith, Unconscionability and Reasonable Expectations S M Waddams* the Expression 'Good Faith' Makes Frequent Appearances in Contract Law

    Good Faith, Unconscionability and Reasonable Expectations S M Waddams* the Expression 'Good Faith' Makes Frequent Appearances in Contract Law

    Good Faith, Unconscionability and Reasonable Expectations S M Waddams* The expression 'good faith' makes frequent appearances in contract law. The concept is firmly established in American jurisdictions because of its inclusion in the Uniform Commercial Code,1 and the Restatement of Contracts.2 It is in the new Quebec Civil Code.3 It forms an important part of many other civil law systems, and appears in a number of international documents applicable in common law jurisdictions.4 Several cases in Commonwealth jurisdictions have adopted it in various contexts.5 There has been much academic writing on good faith. English and Commonwealth writers have been divided in their opinions on whether the adoption of a general concept of good faith would be desirable.6 American writers, however, rarely discuss this question: the concept is sufficiently firmly fixed now for this to be of theoretical interest only.7 The focus of American writing is on what meaning should be given to the expression, and how it applies in different contexts. On a question of this sort, where the law is in many jurisdictions apparently in the process of change, two levels of analysis are necessary. It is of interest to examine the probable effect and utility of adopting, in English and Commonwealth law, a general doctrine of good faith. This process involves the identification of problems likely to be caused by the doctrine. It is of theoretical as well as of practical interest, and might well tend to suggest caution on the part of law reformers, legislative, judicial, and academic. But since the concept of good faith has found favour in several jurisdictions where it is unlikely to be decisively rejected, an equally important function of analysis is to suggest ways in which the problems of integrating good faith with other contractual concepts can be minimised.
  • Practical and Substantive Aspects of Subrogation

    Practical and Substantive Aspects of Subrogation

    PRACTICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF SUBROGATION Eric A. Dolden and Dan C. Richardson September 2015 [Author] © Dolden Wallace Folick LLP 1 CONTACT LAWYER Eric Dolden Dan Richardson 604.891.0350 604.891.5251 [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS ....................................................................................4 II. STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF SUBROGATION ....................................................6 1. Statutory Right of Subrogation ...........................................................................6 2. Contractual Right of Subrogation .......................................................................8 III. PROHIBITIONS ON SUBROGATION ........................................................................11 1. The Insurer As “Volunteer” ..............................................................................11 2. Covenants To Insure - The "Doctrine Of Legal Immunity” ..........................21 (a) Commercial tenancies ............................................................................22 (b) The scope of a covenant to insure .........................................................38 (c) Covenants to insure in other commercial settings .............................40 (d) Covenants to insure and indemnification ...........................................43 (e) "Legal immunity" in the statutory setting ...........................................45 (f) The liability of employees: Greenwood Shopping Plaza
  • Enforcing Private Purpose Trusts

    Enforcing Private Purpose Trusts

    Enforcing Private Purpose Trusts Mark Pawlowski and James Brown examine the possibility of using the mechanism of a residuary legatee in order to enforce a trust for non-charitable purposes As trust lawyers will be aware, a trust for non-charitable purposes is void under English law as having no human beneficiary capable of enforcing the trust. The so-called "human beneficiary" principle is of long-standing and, although there are several notable (albeit limited) exceptions, the general principle remains that a trust must have beneficiaries who are capable of owning the trust property and enforcing the obligations and duties of the trustees. The reason for the rule is that a trust gives rise to obligations and so, consequently there must be a beneficiary to whom the duties of a trustee are owed. Conversely, the beneficiaries have a correlative right to render the trustee accountable for his actions and so, if necessary, compel performance of his obligations by court order. If there are no beneficiaries with equitable interests in the trust assets, there is technically no one "in whose favour the court can decree specific performance": Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804) 9 Ves 399. The difficulty, of course, with this approach is that it frustrates the wishes of a settlor or testator, who may want to benefit a legitimate object or purpose which does not fall within the definition of a charity. A trust, for example, for the repair and maintenance of a private country house will not be charitable as it does not fall readily within any of the recognised heads of charity set out in s.3 of the Charities Act 2011 and lacks the element of public benefit.
  • Asset Tracing in the British Virgin Islands

    Asset Tracing in the British Virgin Islands

    Article Asset Tracing in the British Virgin Islands In this article, we will discuss some of the tools available to a party in the British Virgin Islands to seek to recover property, or proceeds of property, which have been misappropriated. It is not surprising that in some cases, the identity of the wrongdoer or the whereabouts of the misappropriated property is unknown. Against that background, it is worth noting that while a BVI, and whether there has been any past judgment which company incorporated in the BVI is required to maintain may shed light on assets held by the company. In addition, certain records at the office of its registered agent (such as upon application the BVI Land Registry can provide certain its memorandum and articles of association, register of details regarding the owner of BVI land or real estate. directors, register of members, minutes of members’ and However, this requires the applicant to first be able to directors’ meetings and copies of resolutions), there is no identify the location or owner of the land. A party may also right for the public to inspect such records. Indeed, obtain certain information regarding vessels registered under confidentiality of corporate documents and information is a BVI flag from the BVI Ship Registry. one of the key attractions of incorporating a company in the BVI. BVI companies are not generally required to maintain or What is “tracing”? file statutory accounts, or meet any particular set of international accounting standards. Under section 98 of the Tracing consists of a series of rules developed by equity to BVI Business Companies Act 2004, all that a company is deal with situations where assets have been required to maintain are records “sufficient to show and misappropriated and the wrongdoer is not in a position to explain the company’s transactions” and which “will, at any compensate, or money compensation is not adequate.