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

The Nuts and Bolts of Auto Law in Pennsylvania

AUTO ACCIDENT BASICS – WHO PAYS WHAT IN PENNSYLVANIA?

Navigating the insurance world after an auto accident can be very confusing. There are many questions revolving around who pays for injuries, medical bills and property damage. Understanding the nuts and bolts of auto accident law, ahead of time, can save considered time and effort.

BODILY INJURY LIABILITY

A. How Much?

Under Pennsylvania law, Pennsylvania car owners must carry at least $ 15,000 of bodily injury liability coverage to pay for personal injuries to another driver, in the event of an accident. Drivers can elect higher amounts.

B. Who Pays?

Bodily injury coverage is based on fault and is available to the other driver in an auto accident. For example, Driver A causes an accident with Driver B, causing serious personal injuries to Driver B. Driver A's auto policy includes the state minimum- $ 15,000 of bodily injury liability coverage. Driver B can make a claim under Driver A's auto policy, for personal injuries, up to the $ 15,000 limit. However, Driver B may be limited in what he can recover, depending on whether he selected Full Tort or Limited Tort in his own auto policy.

C. How it Works?

In some instances, an injured driver can make a claim for bodily injury liability coverage against the other driver's insurance company without having to file a lawsuit. However, if that insurance company fails to offer fair and reasonable compensation, the injured driver may have to file a lawsuit against the other driver.

PROPERTY DAMAGE

A. How Much?

Under Pennsylvania law, Pennsylvania car owners must carry at least $ 5,000 of property damage coverage to pay for property damage to another driver, in the event of an accident. Drivers can elect higher amounts.

B. Who Pays?

This type of coverage is frequently misunderstood. It is not available to an insured driver, under its own policy. Rather, it is available to the other driver in an accident, and is based upon fault. In our example, Driver A causes an accident with Driver B. Driver B's car is totaled. Driver A has $ 10,000 of property damage coverage. Driver B can make a claim under Driver A's auto policy for the fair market value of the total car, up to $ 10,000. In this same example, let's assume Driver A's auto was damaged. Driver A can not make a property damage claim under his own policy. Again, property damage coverage is only available to the other driver and is based on fault.

C. Collision and Comprehensive Coverage

Collision and comprehensive coverage are optional and cover different types of auto damage. Collision covers any damage caused by an auto accident less a deductible. Comprehensive coverage covers any non-accident damage, such as fire, theft, etc., less a deductible. A driver who has purchased these types of coverage can make a claim under their own auto policy. Using the same example, Driver A-who caused the accident, can make a claim for repair to his auto, if and only if he has collision coverage. If Driver A did not purchase collision coverage, he would be responsible for the repairs.

D. How it Works

If an innocent driver's auto is damaged in an accident caused by another driver, a property damage claim can be made directly to the other driver's auto insurance company. So long as the accident is clearly the other driver's fault, this is usually the easiest way to make a property damage claim. If the innocent driver has collision coverage under his own auto policy, then a property damage claim can be made with his own auto insurance company. However, the deductible would have been subtracted from the total amount recovered. Then, because the accident was the other driver's fault, the innocent driver's own auto insurance company should obtain the deductible from the other driver's auto insurance company. That deductible should eventually make its way back to the innocent driver.

Again, using our example, Driver A is at fault for an accident with Driver B. Driver B has a collision coverage with a standard $ 500 deductible. Driver B has a choice to make a claim with Driver A's insurance company or his own insurance company. If he makes the claim with his own insurance company, he would receive the fair market value of his total auto less the $ 500 deductible. His insurance company would then seek reimbursements from Driver A's auto insurance company for the fair market value and the deductible. At some point, Driver B should receive the $ 500 deductible back from his own insurance company-because the accident was Driver A's fault.

A property damage claim is usually made without having to resort to a lawsuit. Incidentals such as rental car costs and towing / storage, are immediately compensable if the innocent driver has purchased such coverage under his own policy. Otherwise, they will become out of pocket expenses in a consequent personal injury lawsuit against the other driver.

MEDICAL BENEFITS

A. How Much?

Under Pennsylvania law, Pennsylvania car owners must carry at least $ 5,000 of medical coverage to pay for medical bills incurred in an auto accident. Drivers can elect higher amounts up to $ 1,000,000.

B. Who Pays?

Many states including Pennsylvania are "No Fault" -meaning that regardless of which fault the accident was, a driver can make a medical benefits claim under their own auto insurance policy, up to the amount of medical benefit coverage purchased.

Using our example, Driver A causes an accident with Driver B. Both drivers have insurance policies with medical benefits coverage. Let's assume that Driver A has $ 10,000 of medical benefits coverage and Driver B has the state minimum- $ 5,000. If both drivers are injured and require medical treatment, they would both make a claim under their respective policies. In this example, Driver A could make a claim for medical benefits up to $ 10,000 and Driver B could make a claim for medical benefits up to $ 5,000.
Also, the medical benefits coverage amount is per person, per accident. In other words, if a father and his minor son are injured in an accident, and the father has an auto policy with $ 5,000 medical benefits coverage, then both can receive up to $ 5,000 of that coverage. If the father or son gets into a consequent accident, they would again be eligible for $ 5,000 of the same coverage.

C. How it Works

When making a claim for medical benefits, a driver may go to a doctor / provider of their choosing and should provide their auto policy claim number and auto insurance information. Under Pennsylvania law, once a driver provides this information to a medical provider, that medical provider is required to bill the auto insurance and can not bill the driver directly. Once the auto insurance company receives bills from the medical providers, the amounts of the bills will be reduced in accordance with Act 6-an Amendment to Pennsylvania motor vehicle law made in 1990. Act 6 limits the amount that medical providers can recover for accident related Medical bills. At some point, the amount of medical benefits under an auto policy may become exhausted and then the driver would use their own medical / health insurance to cover any remaining bills.

D. Priority of Coverage

When a person is injured in an accident, there can be more than one source of medical benefits. Under Pennsylvania law, there is an order of coverage, known as "priority of coverage". The first level is an auto policy in which the injured person is a "named insured" – that generally means an auto policy purchased by the injured person. The second level is an auto policy in which the injured person is "insured". This generally refers to an auto policy purchased by the injured person's spouse, parent or relative residing in the same household.

The third level applies when the injured person does not own an auto policy and is not covered as an insured under any auto policy. This third level is an auto policy covering the auto that the injured person was riding in when the accident occurred. Finally, the fourth level applies to injured persons who are pedestrians or bicyclists. This fourth level is any auto policy involved in the accident. In some situations, more than one policy may apply-and the first auto insurance policy to get billed will be liable up to the applicable medical benefits amount. That insurance company can then, seek reimbursements from the other insurance company. Also, if a person is injured in an auto accident during their employment, workers' compensation coverage is the primary source of medical benefits coverage.

F. Persons Who Do Not Qualify for Medical Benefits

Under Pennsylvania law, certain classes of drivers do not qualify for medical benefits, even though they have purchased auto policies. They include motorcycle drivers, snowmobile, motorized bike, and four wheeler operators. Also, the owner of a registered auto who fails to purchase auto insurance can not make a claim for medical benefits. For example, a person may own a registered car, but then fails to obtain insurance for it. If that person becomes injured while a passenger in a friend's car, they can not make a claim for medical benefits under the friend's auto policy. These classes of drivers must use their own medical / health insurance to pay for any medical bills incurred as a result of an accident.

For more information visit http://www.thepanjinjurylawyers.com/practice_areas/new-jersey-car-accident-attorney-pennsylvania-truck-wreck-lawyer.cfm

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Nuts and Bolts of Auto Law in Pennsylvania

Cancun Weather – Best and Worst Months to Go

Cancun weather is one reason why this Mexican resort enclave is the second most popular vacation destination in the Caribbean region.

Other reasons why Cancun draws so many tourists include its hotel, shopping and restaurant strip; the inexpensive bus transportation system; plenty of things to do; and convenient access to and from U.S. airports. It is 1.5 hours flight time from Miami and four hours from Chicago.

The best time to go to Cancun depends in part on whether you prefer to spend a lot of time on the beach and in the water, or if you like to spend most of your time shopping, dining and visiting the various attractions in the region. Some fabulous Mayan ruins are located nearby.

Cancun weather is generally warm throughout the year — in fact many hotels and resorts have open air lobbies — but offshore breezes can make the air and water more chilly in winter months.

Average Temperatures

The average year-round high temperature for this resort destination is nearly 88 degrees Fahrenheit and the average low temperature is just less than 74 degrees, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Cancun weather in May through September is the warmest time to visit when the average high temperature exceeds 90 degrees each month — peaking at 92.5 in August.

Cancun weather in December, January and February is coolest when the average high temperatures are about 83 degrees.

The average low drops below 70 degrees in January and February, and barely breaks 70 in December.

Average Rainfall

The average rainfall is 4.4 inches per month and the average number of rain days per month is 9.6.

The rainfall and rain days are about average for a Caribbean destination.

February, March and April are the driest months when it rains less than 1.8 inches a month. It also rains only five days a month during that time.

Total rainfall increases in June, drops in July and climbs during the most active hurricane season months of September and October, when it rains nearly nine inches per month.

November also has a higher than average amount of rain.

Best Times to Go

Vacationers will find that the best time to go to Cancun is February through May, while they should avoid it in September and especially in October.

However, be aware that water temperatures in February and March are chilly and not comfortable for swimming for any great length of time.

Posted in general | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Cancun Weather – Best and Worst Months to Go