Logo ©1994-2007 Kevin Boone
My professional interests
Computing
Law
Education
Science and research

My leisure interests
Martial arts
Heritage railways
Garden railways
Motorcycles
DIY

Downloads
Linux downloads
Windows downloads
Java downloads
Perl downloads
Home automation downloads

About me
Home & family
My CV

Site info
Contact the author
Download policy
Keyword index

  Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary

Automatic resulting trust

Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006

In general, an automatic ResultingTrust arises when a settlor transfers property to be held on trust but, for some reason or another, the BeneficialInterest cannot be assigned properly to the beneficiaries. The beneficial interest therefore `rebounds' or `results' back to the settlor, there being nowhere else to put it.

The term `automatic resulting trust' was popularised by the decision of Megarry J in ReVandervellNo21974. In that case he described how a trust would come into existence because the circumstances of the settlor's actions separated the legal and equitable title, but did not properly dispose of the equitable title to the beneficiaries. No particular motive or intention was necessary for the creation of the resulting trust, hence the designation `automatic'.

The decision of the HouseOfLords in WestdeutscheVIslinton1996 casts doubts on Megarry's analysis; in particular, the House doubted that any trust could arise `automatically'. A key feature in any trust obligation was conscience -- the intended trustee would have at least to be aware that he was entering into a trust obligation before it was equitable to impose one on him. As a result, some earlier cases in which a resulting trust was found have to be regarded as incorrectly decided or, at least, incorrectly analysed -- see `TheoreticalBasisForResultingTrusts' for a discussion of this point.

The cases in which a resulting trust has been found (which would have been interpreted as an automatic resulting trust prior to Westdeutsche) fall into a number of discrete groups.

  • Failure to specify the beneficiaries with sufficient precision (see CertaintyOfObjects). For example, in VandervellVIRC1966 the settlor created a trust of his company's shares, but made it a condition that the beneficiary grant an option to purchase the shares back to the trustee company. Since it was clear that the beneficial interest in the shares was not intended to go to the trustees, and there was nobody else it could be ascribed to, it came back to the settlor as a resulting trust.
  • Failure to specify how the beneficial interest is to be shared between the beneficiaries (e.g., BoyceVBoyce1849)
  • Completion of the trust purpose (e.g., ReGillinghamBusDisasterFund1958, ReAbbott1900)
  • Dissolution of an UnincorporatedAssociation (e.g., AirJamaicaVCharlton1999, WestSussexConstabularyWidowsFund1971)
  • Advancement of a loan to fulfill a certain commercial objective (e.g., BarclaysBankVQuistclose1970)

    The last two categories in particular may have to be reviewed in the light of Westdeutsche, since in many of the cases there was no expressed intention to create a trust.

    Even where cases seem to fall into one of these categories, and don't offend against the requirements of Westdeutsche, certain circumstances may lead the court to deny the existence of a resulting trust.

  • The trust would be unworkable. In West Sussex_, specific donations made by bequest were held to give rise to resulting trust, but money donated in public collections did not. Although there is little difference, if any, between these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult to manage a trust with a large number of unknown beneficiaries.
  • The settlor's intention survives the completion of the trust purpose. In a TrustOfImperfectObligation, the express purpose is deemed to be subsidiary to the settlor's intention to benefit the beneficiary in a general sense. Consequently, the courts may find it preferable to maintain the trust for the beneficiary, rather than finding a resulting trust (see ReOsaba1979).

    TrustLaw

    Law glossary index

  •    
    Search

    WebThis site

    Shameless plug

    By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK

    Editorial
    So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first!

    Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese

    Computing features
    File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O

    All sorts of Linux stuff

    Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here

    First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2)