fbpx

Creating a Family Trust? Are You Sure It Reflects Your True Intentions?

20th April 2021 By

Rather than giving money to your children directly, you may choose for a variety of good reasons to provide for them by way of a discretionary trust. Such a step is a serious matter, however, and as a High Court case underlined, it is extremely difficult to alter a trust deed after it has been formally executed.

The case concerned a father who wished to make provision for his three children from an inheritance of about £450,000 that he had received from his mother. He signed a deed that varied the terms of his mother’s will. As drafted, the deed placed all of his inheritance into a trust for the benefit of his children. The deed having been duly executed, he could neither cancel nor amend it.

The father launched proceedings seeking rectification of the deed on the basis that it did not reflect his true wishes. He said that his intention was that he and his wife would be included with their children as beneficiaries of the trust.

Ruling on the matter, the Court found that his instructions concerning the deed had not been correctly recorded. As a result, his name and that of his wife had been omitted from the list of beneficiaries. Regardless of where responsibility, if any, for that omission lay, the deed did not implement his intentions.

The Court found that the father wished to earmark £100,000 for the benefit of each of the three children and the remaining £150,000 for the benefit of himself and his wife. He wanted to create a discretionary trust so that the children’s access to funds would be controlled by trustees. One of the children was disabled and the trust was also designed to safeguard his access to state benefits. The Court exercised its discretion to rectify the deed so that it gave effect to those intentions.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...