Talk:Trust (law)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move

I think my decision to move this page deserves some justification.

This article may be - indeed appears to be - good in terms of content: but if it is, it is good only with regard to the USA's legal systems. Much of the content is wrong in the context of trust law more directly based on the "English model", as it applies in England and Wales, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Bermuda, Canada, (some of) the Caribbean, (some of) the Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand - as well as several civil law nations with statutory trusts laws.

This difficulty asserts itself from the very first sentence, where trusts are conceived as a branch of contract law.

I felt that any attempt to reconcile the two legal systems in one article was doomed to failure, and would only lead to understandable disputes with the existing authors. My solution is to move the existing Trusts (property) to Trust (Law) USA and to create the new page Trust (Law) non-USA (a title which might itself promote some debate, there) to deal with trusts in the English-model jurisdictions.

I will make the obvious amendments on Trust (disambiguation), and in the first sentence of this article. I do not intend to make any further amendment on this page. AndyJones 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Complete re-write necessary

This article needs a complete rewrite. Recently, an anon added a lot of information to the introduction of the article which needs to be incorporated into the remaining context of the article itself. The information does not seem to be copyvio, but should be checked nonetheless. I lack the knowledge on this subject to combine these sections effectively, but if someone else who has a bit more of an idea about this could, then that would be much appreciated. --tomf688^{talk} 23:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

it could certainly use better section/sub-section organization

I believe I am the anon (didn't know there was another way to do this!) and I couldn't agree more. All this information comes from nearly 30 years in the business. I am not an attorney and my intended audience is the educated layman who wants to learn the basics rather than get a law school board prep.

Revocable testamentary trust

Would someone mind providing a cite or discussion re the possibility of creating a revocable testamentary trust? I am skeptical that this is possible but am willing to be educated.

gbroiles 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's your answer: the testator/settlor simply writes a clause into testamentary trust allowing one or more persons the right to withdraw all the assets at any time. I've seen this in Indiana documents at least twice. Such trusts are treated as grantor trusts for tax purposes even though they are testamentary. This brings up what should be an obvious point but is frequently missed: It makes not a whit of difference whether a trust was created inter vivos or by testatment. The administrator must still read the document and see what it says. One should be careful to not assume a testamentary trust is ipso facto irrevocable. Unfortunately, this assumption is made by many practitioners without reading the document. Indeed, most software (SEI for example) simiply assumes all trusts under will are irrevocable. [note above comment from user at address 68.58.58.82 on 20 Feb. 2006]

Dear fellow editors: We have a terminology problem here. A clause in a testamentary trust allowing one or more persons the right to withdraw all the assets at any time would not be a "revocable" trust merely on that basis. By definition, "revocation" can be done only by the testator (not "testor"), and only prior to death (by revoking the will, basically, or at least revoking the part of the will dealing with the trust). By definition, a testamentary trust does not arise until the testator dies. After the testator is dead, he or she is in no position to revoke anything. And termination of the trust by having one or more persons withdrawing all the assets (i.e., after the testator has died) is not a "revocation" of the trust. The reason that most practitioners make the assumption that a testamentary trust is ipso facto irrevocable (i.e., irrevocable after the testator dies) is that they are legally correct. Once the testator has died, the trust is "irrevocable" -- by definition. Before the testator dies, the WILL can be revoked, so that the trust never comes into existence.

On a somewhat tangential note, if a testator allows a particular putative beneficiary to take a bequest, etc., prior to the testator's death (for example, in lieu of part of the property that would otherwise indirectly go to the recipient by or through the testamentary trust after death), then the item transferred wasn't really transferred by trust at all. Again, by law a testamentary trust cannot come into existence until the testator dies, and the trust itself technically cannot be "revoked" until it comes into existence. Yours, Famspear 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: The following language:

Practitioners should be careful: It is possible to title a trust with, for example, the word IRREVOCABLE, and not change the title at such time as it becomes revocable due to age attainment of a beneficiary or due to some other contingency.

was deleted. Again, the "practitioners" are generally correct, and the editor (at IP address 68.58.58.82) who inserted this language is, as a general proposition, incorrect. We need to use legal terminology correctly. A trust does not become "revocable" because a beneficiary attains a certain age, for example. A trust might "terminate" for that reason, but it would not be "revoked" for that reason.

The only way I can think of off hand that a trust could be "revoked" in this situation would be where the testator set up a trust for himself (for example, with someone else as trustee), say at age 21, with a provision that says that he himself could not revoke the trust until he reached, say, age 30. That's a highly unlikely scenario, and I don't think that's what my fellow editor intended. "Revocation" is one way to "terminate" a trust -- but "revocation" can be done only by the creator of the trust. Termination of a trust according to its terms, such as the age attainment of a beneficiary or some other contingency, is generally not considered a "revocation." Yours, Famspear 00:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: From a fiduciary tax perspective the ability to remove any or all funds at will makes the trust a grantor trust for tax purposes and all grantor trusts (as defined in fiduciary tax law) are revocable. Arguing that a testamentary trust can never be revoked, because the settlor has died, misses the practical point. It seems entirely defensible to call a testamentary trust that can be terminated at the will of a beneficiary a revocable trust. Indeed, practitioners (lawyers and trust officers) typically refer to such testamentary trusts as revocable. Isn't a revocable trust one that can be terminated at the will of a beneficiary?

Moving on: I find the following statement

            "By definition, "revocation" can be done only by the testator...."

remarkable. This gets to the heart of the matter: Revocation is not a right exclusive to the settlor. It is a right retained in most but not all cases by the settlor, and granted in some cases to one or more other beneficiaries during or after the lifetime of the settlor. While a settlor is usually his own beneficiary (in the case of a full-service inter vivos trust created for money management and typical fiduciary services during lifetime), he is no different than any other beneficiary having the right to terminate a trust. If someone can terminate a trust, then the trust is revocable -- whether or not the settlor is alive and has retained that right. Fellow editor's "by definition" language simply doesn't fly in my 30 years experience. Try saying out loud with a straight face in the offices of any serious corporate fiduciary organization or law firm that a testamentary trust which happens to be a grantor trust for tax purposes is not thereby revocable and you will see what I'm talking about.

And, finally, I agree with fellow editor that a trust that is about to close due to required age attainment payouts need not change its name to "revocable". However, if a beneficiary due to age attainment or other reasons (such as satisfaction of a condition such as having a child) now has a right to pull out the assets and thus terminate the trust but nevertheless does not do so, a wise trust officer will do well to put the word "revocable" into the title. The reason: the trust has now become a grantor trust (a beneficiary has the right to take all the assets at any time) and all grantor trusts (for tax purposes) are ipso facto revocable. Again, revocability is not a function of the state of being of the settlor but rather of the rights of the beneficiaries.

Note: the right of a beneficiary to fire the trustee and substitute another does NOT make the trust revocable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.58.82 (talk • contribs) .

Dear anonymous editor at IP 68.58.58.82:

The statement: “Arguing that a testamentary trust can never be revoked, because the settlor has died, misses the practical point” itself misses the point that there is no “practical point” here. The term “revocable” as used here is a legal term, and we need to use legal terms correctly when writing about “legal stuff.” All this is hair-splitting, I grant you.

Regarding the statement: “It seems entirely defensible to call a testamentary trust that can be terminated at the will of a beneficiary a revocable trust.”

You may feel that it “seems” entirely defensible to call such a testamentary trust a “revocable” trust, but your feeling is misplaced. If you have been working in the “trust industry”, you should be using trust law terms correctly. Revocation is one method of termination, but it’s only one method. By definition, “revocation” of a legal document can be done only by the maker of the document (i.e., in the case of trust law, the terms used for “maker” are generally creator, settlor, grantor, and trustor, and I’ll use those terms interchangeably here). Revocation is done by a settlor as settlor, etc., not by a trustee as trustee, not by a beneficiary as beneficiary. The termination of a trust is not necessarily a “revocation.”

I know of no legal authority using the term “revocation” in the way you are using it in trust law. Under the Texas statutes, for example, the only “revocation” power listed with respect to a trust is the power held by the settlor. See generally Texas Property Code section 112.051.

Black’s Law Dictionary states:

Revocable trust. A trust in which the settlor reserves to himself the right to revoke.

Black’s Law Dictionary, page 1187 (5th ed. 1979).

Barron’s Law Dictionary states:

Revocable – able to be terminated at the maker’s discretion.

Barron’s Law Dictionary, page 415 (2d ed. 1984) (emphasis in original).

A leading law school case book on trusts, Richard V. Wellman, Lawrence W. Waggoner & Olin L. Browder, Jr., Palmer’s Cases and Materials on Trusts and Succession, pages 661-662 (4th ed. 1983), makes no reference to a "revocation" by anyone other than the settlor, etc.

Regarding the verbiage: “Indeed, practitioners (lawyers and trust officers) typically refer to such testamentary trusts as revocable. Isn't a revocable trust one that can be terminated at the will of a beneficiary?”

Hmmm. I guess I don’t know the lawyers and trust officers you know, who are making these “typical” references. And no, a revocable trust is not one that can be terminated “at the will of a beneficiary.” A revocable trust is one that can be terminated at the will of the settlor, etc. As a lawyer and a certified public accountant I have never heard a trust officer use the term “revocable” in the way you are using it. I certainly have never heard a lawyer or CPA use the term “revocable” in that way.

Regarding the statement: “Revocation is not a right exclusive to the settlor.” This statement is incorrect. Again, by definition revocation of a trust can be done only by the settlor, etc. I ask you to show me a statute or court decision that uses the term "revocable" in the way you are using it.

Regarding the statement: “It [revocation] is a right [ . . . ] granted in some cases to one or more other beneficiaries during or after the lifetime of the settlor.” Again, false. There is no such thing as a right of “revocation” being granted by a settlor to a beneficiary. Any statement in a trust document or will to the contrary would be an example of sloppy drafting. There is a provision in the tax statutes that allows a trust that is terminable by the beneficiary to be treated as a grantor trust with respect to that beneficiary -- but that is not the same thing as saying that the beneficiary has the power to "revoke" the trust.

Regarding the statement: “If someone can terminate a trust, then the trust is revocable -- whether or not the settlor is alive and has retained that right.” Good grief. That statement is, again, totally incorrect. I contend you are incorrectly equating the term “revocation” with the broader term “termination.”

Regarding the statement: “Fellow editor's "by definition" language simply doesn't fly in my 30 years experience. [ . . . ] Try saying out loud with a straight face in the offices of any serious corporate fiduciary organization or law firm that a testamentary trust which happens to be a grantor trust for tax purposes is not thereby revocable and you will see what I'm talking about.”

First of all, there is no such thing as a “testamentary trust which happens to be a grantor trust for tax purposes” (with an exception noted below). By law a testamentary trust cannot even come into existence until the testator dies. While the testator is alive, he can revoke the will at any time. While he is alive, he cannot revoke the trust, as there is as yet no trust to revoke. Again, a testamentary trust (a trust created only by a will) cannot come into existence until the will comes into effect – at the time of death of the testator. This is VERY, VERY basic law. By law, there is no such thing as a “grantor trust” created by a person who died before the trust was created (i.e., created by a person whose death essentially brought the trust into being) that is a grantor trust with respect to that person. You can, however, have such a trust be treated as a grantor trust for a beneficiary where the beneficiary essentially has the right to terminate (and the word is "terminate", not "revoke") the trust (see 26 U.S.C. § 678). (The statute does not even use the word "terminate"; it says "vest corpus or income in himself", or something like that.)

With all due respect, I would be curious to know what your 30 years of experience consists of. Are you actually drafting trust documents yourself? It sounds like you have only been working in a trust department, and have developed some curious ways of using legal terms.

Since you are bringing up your experience, let me tell you about mine. I am an attorney and a certified public accountant. I have 23 years of experience. I have published many articles nationally on the subject of taxation. As a certified public accountant (prior to law school), I was trained in bank auditing (including trust department audits) by three CPAs who had previously worked as bank auditors for what was then Peat Marwick. I became the lead auditor in the examination of the trust department of a bank with over 600 million dollars in assets and hundreds of employees (not counting the trust department itself). I personally wrote the auditor's reports on the trust department. After law school I first practiced law in the tax-estates-trusts section of a large law firm in its main office in the fourth largest city in the United States. I worked on fiduciary tax matters for people including the family of one of the most well-known political figures in the United States. My law school course on trusts, by the way, was taught by one of America’s leading experts on trust law (he also happened to be one of the leading experts on constitutional law, but that’s another story). The people with whom I work are graduates of the most prestigious law schools in the country. I have known hundreds of trust lawyers and CPAs and I have never heard anyone use the term “revocation” in the way you are using it. Maybe your state has a particular statute that defines “revocation” differently.

Regarding the statements: “However, if a beneficiary due to age attainment or other reasons (such as satisfaction of a condition such as having a child) now has a right to pull out the assets and thus terminate the trust but nevertheless does not do so, a wise trust officer will do well to put the word "revocable" into the title. The reason: the trust has now become a grantor trust [ . . . ]”

Wow! Look, the fact that a beneficiary other than the grantor has the right to pull out all the assets and terminate the trust does not make the trust a “grantor trust” with respect to the creator, under any law of which I am aware! The trust may, however, be treated as a grantor trust for a beneficiary who has the power to essentially terminate (again "terminate" not "revoke") it (see generally 26 U.S.C. § 678). The Federal income tax rules for a grantor trust are found at 26 U.S.C. § 671 through 26 U.S.C. § 679 and the related Treasury regulations. Yes, 26 U.S.C. § 676 is entitled "Power to revoke". But the actual text in the body of the statute does not refer to the non-adverse party's power as being a power of "revocation." Check 'em out. I invite you to look for any authority for your position in the Federal statutes, the regulations, the case law, or in any IRS ruling. Again, are you instead talking about the trust law of the state wherein you practice? Please cite the statute or court decision that is your authority. Please let us know specifically what state is using the term “revocation” in its trust laws in the way you are using the term.

Regarding the statement: “Again, revocability is not a function of the state of being of the settlor but rather of the rights of the beneficiaries.” Again, as a matter of any Federal or state trust law of which I am aware, this statement is incorrect. Revocation has nothing to do with the “rights of the beneficiaries.” Revocation is a legal term that, in trust law, refers only to a power of the settlor (the creator, grantor, or trustor).

All this is hair-splitting. But if you’re going edit an encyclopedia, you need to split hairs on terminology – especially technical terms in technical areas such as are used in science, engineering, information technology -- and law. Yours, Famspear 07:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor at IP 68.58.58.52: As a post-script, I should add that I realize your experience as a trust officer has to be a lot more current that mine. I am a tax practitioner, but the legal and auditing experience I described in my rant above was over 15 years ago. I don't want to leave the impression that I am claiming superior expertise on the specific subject of trusts, or that I could ever have done so. Yours, Famspear 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear critic: I have read your material with interest and do not doubt or dispute your reading of the law. I have indeed worked as a trust officer at one of America's largest banks for nearly 30 years and speak in terms that trust officers and their clients understand. I operate in a major market and have one of the largest books of business in the industry. I have no issue with your distinction between revocation and termination of a trust. What I can't find is that this makes any practical difference. If a testamentary trust gives a beneficiary the right to take all the money and bring the trust to an end, it is irrelevant to me as a practical matter whether you call it a termination or a revocation. While the action may be termination, the commonly accepted adjective for this condition is "revocable". You are correct that this is hair-splitting. Please keep in mind that my audience has never been the nation's trust and estate attorneys. I believe I have made this clear elsewhere.

Thus the distinction between revocation and termination strikes me as a distinction without a difference. If the statutes define revocation as something done only by settlors, then so be it. But the laws might just as well define termination as something done only by settlors. The terminology is largely arbitrary and irrelevant in my view, as the result is the same. In the meantime I will continue to refer to an irrevocable trust that can be terminated by action of a non-settlor as being revocable. Everyone in the industry -- including the attorneys among us -- and all beneficiaries will understand me and find my choice of language quite ordinary however vexing to a purist. The patois of the trust community is that such trusts are revocable, even if the statutes and my knowledgeable critic find this infelicitous. I suppose in some sense I am arguing that the term may continue to be misused, because everyone does it. Isn't the important thing that I am understood? The violence I do to the term "revocable" is scarcely harmful and never lethal. It is not for example obnoxious in the way "schizophrenic" is consisently misused in common speech. There misuse can be harmful.

I find it interesting that you don't know anyone who uses the term revocable in the way I have. I don't know anyone in the industry who would not understand the term in this context, who would object, or who might be misled as to my meaning. In nearly 30 years no one -- including the law school lecturer who taught me the business -- has ever objected to this use of the term. My contention is that this is how such trusts are referred to by the trust officers and attorneys I know -- however infrequently this may come up.

Sidebar: I have noticed considerable differences in how trust officers and lawyers talk about trusts from one company and region to another. No one I know ever refers to a credit shelter trust as a by-pass trust, yet I see the term used in other markets. I think we can both cite other examples. My "CRUT" may be your "CRT".

Ultimately, I have no dispute with anything you have stated. My ultimate concern -- to use your approach -- is that trust officers and clients never assume -- without reading the document -- that a testamentary trust may not be terminated by action of a non-settlor. I appreciate your input....

A further note for my learned critic: I have stated elsewhere that I do not disagree with your remarks. Appropriately, I have stopped refering to irrevocable trusts that can be terminated by a beneficiary as being revocable. I now refer to them as irrevocable trusts that can be terminated by a beneficiary. This is scarely a felicitous name, which is pretty much why the typical trust officer uses the short cut. As I think back on a now long career with one of the world's largest banks, I can think of only a handfull of such trusts. I would suppose over these years I have administered, invested, marketed, reviewed or otherwise touched at least 1000 trusts. I would be interested in the experience of others in the trust community with this odd duck.

It looks like this got pretty heated, but I do have a comment on the issue I'd like to add. In my opinion revocation actually destroys the rights of beneficiaries along with the powers of trustees, whereas termination merely ends the trust by distributing the corpus and merging all of the powers of the trustees into the remainder beneficiaries. I agree that only a settlor can revoke (though it gets a bit complicated when there were multiple settlors of the same trust when some have died - because it would seem that revocation should restore the settlors interests in the corpus not vest the interests in the remaining settlors). Revocation is a special power retained by the settlors to effectively cancel the agreement and it does not require that the settlors be beneficiaries. Termination will occur as specified in the trust or it can generally happen by agreement of all trustees and beneficiaries. Termination will also occur if the corpus is extinguished or if all the trustees and beneficiaries are identical. Doug - DDHME 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Trust law and "contractual"

I have edited out the word "contractual" at the beginning of the article. I would argue that trust law is more fundamentally a species of property law, not contract law. That is, the beneficiary's relationship to the trustee is one of privity of estate, not privity of contract. There is arguably a contractual relationship between the trustor and the trustee, of course, so maybe I'm all wet -- and it's been a long time since I read the leading cases on trust law. I realize I'm splitting hairs here. Anybody have any thoughts? Famspear 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not burdened with having a law degree, but I did learn the business from a law professor and he always spoke of the contractural relationship between the grantor and the trustee. So did the law texts I used when I cut my teeth as a trust officer. Yes, you may be splitting hairs as a final ruling by the Law Gods would have no affect on how I handle about 135 trusts. I do appreciate however that trust law is an odd bird generating such questions. [Note: This comment apparently inserted by anonymous user at IP 68.58.58.52 on 4 March 2006]

Modifications to article on 23 January 2006

Dear fellow editors: I made lots of organizational (and a few substantive) changes to the main article on 23 January 2006. However, the article still needs work. Hhheelllppppp! Just kidding -- actually I would argue that those who have already contributed the substance of this article have done a very good job! Maybe it mostly needs some more fine tuning? Famspear 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For one, it needs a new name that's actually consistent with other Wikipedia articles as well as the Manual of Style. I would use Trust (American law) or Trust (United States). But trust law is a low priority for me (I don't practice it and I didn't find it very interesting when I studied it in law school) so I'll leave it to you to fix the title if you wish. --Coolcaesar 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of Trusts

I have been reading Paul Johnson's Bold textHistory of ChristianityBold text and found a reference to trusts being used as early as the fourth century CE by Roman Catholic clergy and bishops to get around rules limiting retention of wealth. Previously, the earliest period in which I had heard of this practice was the 11th or 12th century in western Europe and England. I'm interested in hearing more about this from professional historians. The reference in the Paul Johnson book in the second paragraph.

Re-merge with Trust (law) non-USA?

I'm proposing a merge of this article and Trust (law) non-USA. I realise the two articles were originally one article; I believe it was better to have them as one, for the following reasons:

• A USA and non-USA article suggests a US-centric encyclopedia, a good example of systemic bias in Wikipedia (though measures are being taken to counter this). The fact that Trust (law) redirects to Trust (law) USA is not a good thing.
• Including 'USA' and 'non-USA' in the article title, in addition to '(law)', is not standard Wikipedia policy, looks messy and is not the kind of title an editor can easily remember should he want to link to the article in the future.
• Having two articles like this makes my job much more difficult..the main disambiguation page for Trust has nearly 200 links to it, and we at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links have to fix them all. Distinguishing the right page between two pages, especially for someone like me with barely any knowledge of law, complicates things a lot. The fact that there are two articles just complicates things generally - not just for me.

Unless I get a strong negative reaction in the next few days, I'll stick up a merge proposal template next week. Nuge | ^talk 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your proposal. I vigorously opposed the original split as well as the unusual and non-standard titles for the two separate articles. --Coolcaesar 20:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been nearly a week and there's been no objections; I've stuck up the merge templates. What is the consensus on this then? Same reasons as listed above. Nuge talk 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message on my talk page about this. I picked it up Thursday, so I've given it a couple of days' thought. My initial reaction was to stand by my original decision to create the second article: my reasoning at the time (which can be seen above) is still valid. Having given it some thought, though, I've concluded that a successful merge might be posssible, so long as the part now called Trust (law) USA gets sufficiently rewritten to make it fit the worldwide model of what a trust actually is. I envisage needing to add a "Jurisdiction" section in the article itself. Since this debate hasn't attracted much attention, and the responses so far are "pro", I think it'll be fine if I start working on the merge myself today and tomorrow, and we can see how it looks on Monday. Incidentally, I'm a bit surprised to see someone above saying he or she "vigorously opposed the original split", since at the time of making it I didn't encounter any opposition, vigorous or otherwise, either on my talk page or the talk page for the new article. AndyJones 12:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your repsonse Andy, I appreciate it, especially as I'm basically proposing the opposite of the work you did before. And cheers for putting the effort in to sort the merge out. As I said before I know very little of this subject really, and can't help out much on the merge beyond practical considerations, but I will request some assistance on the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Nuge talk 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What about a general "Trust Law" page that links to Trust law (USA), Trust law (Germany), Trust law (XYZ), etc.? Or, perhaps, "Trust Law" (generally), "Trust Law" (common law countries, with differences in USA, England, Australia, etc.), "Trust Law" (civil law countries, differences in France, Germany, etc.), etc? Would this be better? Chart123

• Could be. I suggest that I try out a merge, and see if the resulting article is too big. If yes, we can split out jurisdictions or topics, but at least there will be one "master" article. (Actually civil law countries don't have trust law, except for a select handful which have introduced it by statute.) AndyJones 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done the merge, and I'm not doing any more work on these pages today. It might be useful if a few people would look over the new page to see if it still makes sense. I personally think the merged terminology section is better than anything either page had before (although that might just be me preening...). I particularly think someone with a USA background should look it over to ensure that in my zealousness to remove USA-centricity I haven't ended up with something too Bermuda-centric. There's no "UK" or "Commonwealth" section under "Jurisdictions", yet, although ultimately I think there should be (see the headings I deleted in my penultimate edit). The page NOW DEFINITELY NEEDS A NEW NAME: Trust law or whatever. I see Coolcaesar has made comments on this a couple of times, so I'm happy to defer to his or her ideas on that. AndyJones 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work Andy. I would suggest simple Trust (law) for the new page name? Nuge talk 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you want to make the change and fix the dab page? Or shall we wait to see if there are further comments? AndyJones 12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a further thought about this: Trust (law) might have a disadvantage over Trust law, which is that if we ever need to split out from this article we'll need either consecutive brackets: e.g. Trust (law) (Liechtenstein), or to use the convention on this current page: Trust (law) Liechtenstein which is already generating complaints that it is non-standard. That's just my 2p worth. I'll leave the decision to other editors. AndyJones 16:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine, as long as there's no problems with linguistics - do people generally refer to this subject as 'Trust law'? If so, I'll make the necessary changes; if not so much, then perhaps Trust (law) is better. Nuge talk 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've made the changes, simply because it looked bad having the wrong title for the right article. Before I fix the links to the old pages (a fairly big task), can someone please confirm that the new title of Trust law is acceptable? Nuge talk 10:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I left this question for a day in the hope someone else would answer it, but since nobody has, I'd say that "trust law" and "trust (law)" are both alright, although their meaning is slightly different. "Trust law" means "the law relating to trusts", and "Trust (law)" means "Trust, the legal concept" as distinct from the social concept or the rock band or whatever. AndyJones 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that merging was the right thing to do. But I felt the page seemed a little long, so I opened up to edit it, and I get this caution at the top "This page is 36 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." So it should be trimmed down a bit - via moving some jurisdiction specific items to jurisdiction specific sub-pages. Given the amount of content, the US jurisdiction section is a prime candidate. And of course, if there is somewhere a legal infobox saying "get competent legal advice from a lawyer, not Wikipedia", that should be added to the page. (I know there is such a box for Jewish halacha.) GRBerry 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My gut reaction: let's live with this version for a week or so before we split anything. I'm quite aware that Famspear and the ANON who between them did so much great work on Trust (Law) USA (as it then was) haven't made any comments or taken the opportunity to edit the merged page, yet. Besides I do work on some pages which are WAY over the ideal article size, in comparison to which, this isn't too bad. Even the Wikipedia:Article size policy doesn't seem too worried. AndyJones 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm new to WP so I'm not going to quite so bold as to rename the Trust law article. But I will be bold enough to say that unless things are way different in Anglo jurisdictions other than the US, the phrase ought to be changed ASAP to Trusts (law). My reason is keeping with tradition. By far the most influential American treatise is Scott on Trusts. But despite the fact that his teaching style was supportive and gentle, Mr. Scott would threaten to wash your mouth out with soap if you ever again uttered the phrase "trust law". Then he would say he was kidding, but I for one never challenged him. --Jrgetsin 22:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnes Foundation case

Any good artciles? John wesley 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off USA trust law

While I realize this was all just recently merged back in (for the better), perhaps the USA section should be made into its own article and the current selection be reduced to two or four paragraphs. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• You'll see that we've started to discuss this idea above. I've no objection in principle although to be honest I don't want to do that work myself. What do other editors think? AndyJones 11:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've only recently revisited the trust page, which looks pretty good. IMO, if there is space to be reserved for US trust law, we ought to have space for other jurisdictions, since there are differences for each. In addition, there may be some merit in developing a project to examine some different approaches to trusts. The work that has been begun on Purpose Trusts is good, but Forced Heirship, reserved powers and so forth could merit articles. Loads of work, I know.--Andrew Gardner 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that there is an edit for UK Law, which is nice text book stuff. However I am concerned that if we get into that level of detail for each jurisdiction, then the article will become rather tautological. Could we reorganise so that there is a core of information that is generally applicable to trusts and deal only with specific differences for jurisdictions?--Andrew Gardner 10:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a risk of too much detail if you split out by jurisdiction - this is an encyclopedia and not a legal text book. The article should focus on central trust concepts which are pan-jurisdictional, rather than providing multiple articles with all the minuatae of trust law in each jurisdiction. One can then have sub-paragraphs pointing out anachronisms from specific jurisdictions. Everyone tried to do a split-out for the Americans with Arbitration and Arbitration in the United States of America, and it didn't work enormously well. Also, where do you draw the line? Do England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland each get their own article? What about each of the 50 states? 13 provinces & territories in Canada? Some number (not sure) of territories in Australia? Plus about 65 sovereign common law countries in the Commonwealth? Splitting out is Pandora's box. Legis 11:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'm honest, what I did when I merged, knowing that the existing text was written mainly by Americans, was to pull out anything that "sounded like bollocks to me", and put it in the USA section. I would agree wholeheartedly with both Andrew Gardner and Legis above IFF someone knowledgable with a USA background could reduce the section down to a more manageable size. I cannot offer to help much with that, but as a Bermuda/England&Wales trusts specialist, I'd be happy to offer opinions on why I think things in the USA section don't apply in other jurisdictions. AndyJones 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Protective Trusts

It was odd that this edit was a change rather than an addition, since both statements are true. The actual wording of s.33 Trustee Act 1925 is:

Upon trust for the principal beneficiary during the trust period or until he, whether before or after the termination of any prior interest, does or attempts to do or suffers any act or thing, or until any event happens, other than an advance under any statutory or express power, whereby, if the said income were payable during the trust period to the principal beneficiary absolutely during that period, he would be deprived of the right to receive the same or any part thereof, in any of which cases, as well as on the termination of the trust period, whichever first happens, this trust of the said income shall fail or determine;

I've made it "...on the happening of a specified event such as the bankruptcy of the beneficiary or any attempt by him to dispose of his interest." Does that meet with general agreement? (England & Wales only, of course.) 212.125.70.174 15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did this crazy "waqf" theory come from?

I took Wills and Trusts in law school. My casebook as well as every single book and article I have ever seen that mentions trusts all agree that it was an indigenous creation of British common law. If no one produces a citation for that crazy "waqf" theory, I'm deleting it in a few weeks. --Coolcaesar 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I've never heard this suggestion made, except on this page. AndyJones 18:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Took care of it. If anyone wants to put it back they have to cite to a decent source for that assertion. --Coolcaesar 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone came back and cited it? I wasn't here for the history. Whether or not the "suggestion" carries any weight, there does deserve to be a link as there is here, since common law practitioners need to know about waqf when dealing with Muslim clients and the standard treatises on trusts don't discuss the concept in other legal systems. Doug - DDHME 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Life Interests alternatives to Trusts

The article currently says, in a USA context, "This use of trusts is similar to life estates and remainders, and are frequently used as alternatives to them." This doesn't ring true to me, at all. In the non-USA trust world, life interests ARE trusts. Can anyone with a USA-law background comment? As I say, the comment only exists in a USA context, so if it's right in USA law it should stand as it is. AndyJones 12:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying a life estate in real property outside the US is deemed to be a species of trust? Rather than a species of real property? Would that be on an enfeoffment to use theory? Anyway, I think the analogy between life estates and remainders on the one hand and trusts on the other hand may be only that, an analogy. The law of property governs the former, the principles of equity the latter. American tax lawyers and accountants are constantly trolling for differences in the treatments as between property rules and trust principles. Examples: (1) a so-called grantor trust results when the settlor transfers property title to a trustee but retains certain equitable powers or interests that will cause the settlor to be treated as the owner for tax purposes. (2) although a property transfer subject to a life estate generally causes the property to be included in the estate for tax purposes, the retention of certain limited equitable powers of appointment produces an incomplete gift and prevents estate taxation (at the cost of losing a step-up in tax basis upon the life tenant's death). Strategems like these depend on the duality between law and equity. Jrgetsin 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Life interests and trusts are very distinct creatures in American law. They have certain superficial similarities but one is legal and the other is equitable. --Coolcaesar 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not "deemed" anything, and I've no idea what an "an enfeoffment to use theory" is. In England and Wales a life interest is a trust. And yes (since the repeal of the Settled Land Act 1925 - but let's not go there) one can only exist in equity. [Thinking about this, I was wrong to say "non-USA": a life interest is a legal estate in Bermuda, for example, I think.] Your comments satisfy me that the article is right as it is, though. Thanks for your help. AndyJones 09:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with the "US" version of this. I am not even sure I agree with the precise distinction between law and equity used here, for I don't know that I've ever dealt with real property law and had only legal issues as opposed to equitable ones. In any case there is a strong connection, but it is in the division of rights that occurs in both transactions. In one the rights of the life tenant and the remaindermen are severed, in the other it is the trustees and the beneficiaries. I don't see why a life tenancy must be in realty, by the way. There is really more similarity though between trusts and mortgages and in some US jurisdictions a form of trust substitutes for a mortgage. This won't hold in lien theory states but in title theory states a mortgage conveys the legal title to the mortgagee just as the trustee has legal title to the corpus. Doug. 07:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge - Use (law)

I put a proposed merge tag on the captioned article. A use is just an older name for a trust, and although that article is perfectly well written, I would suggest it either belongs as a sub-category of this article, or perhaps (if it is then too big) under a separate history of trusts article. Views welcome. Legis 09:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I was taught in Wills and Trusts in law school that the theory and concept of the use was quite distinct from the trust, even if their actual utility was quite similar. I see no need to merge. --Coolcaesar 03:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Family Trusts (Australia)

The article seems to imply that family trusts are the same as other discretionary trusts. I think that instead, a family trust is a type of discretionary trust, relaxing some rules, but imposing tax penalties if distributions are made to non-family members. One page mentioning family trusts:[1] --RobBrisbane 11:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Family Trusts are exclusive to Australia as my office has a few hundred clients that have done escrows under Family Trusts. I'll try to find out more. --Leaftye 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would strike me as surprising if the two terms were fully interchangeable. I have never practised in Australia, but I remember studying law in the UK that we looked at a lot of Australian case law and authorities, and it would just surprise me if the term "discretionary trust" was not used as the normal description for trusts of that nature. But I'll defer to the Aussies to make the change if needed. Legis 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the trust world the term "family trust" is often used, pretty glibly, for many kinds of trusts - but in the areas I know (England&Wales and Offshore) the term doesn't have a specific technical meaning and you frequently call a trust the "so-and-so family trust" - without implying anything particular about its nature. If the term has a specific meaning in Australia, can someone provide a source? AndyJones 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested Family Trust as a new article on WP Australian Law.--124.148.75.249 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a note to that talk page, too, inviting members of WP:AL to join this discussion. AndyJones 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not a term of art and it's probably just plain English for discretionary trust. I'll check it out in Ford & Lee and see what they have to say about it. Sambo 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Breach of Trust?

Would it be fitting for this article to include something about Breach of Trust? It seems an article on it has been requested for more than a year, and the article it currently redirects to is about a Canadian Rock Band, which I'm not sure is appropriate without at least offering some sort of disambiguation. I added a template to the Canadian Rock Band page for DAB, but right now it directs to Trust Law. Does it deserve its own page, or is it a type of Contract Breach? AlexDitto 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Breach of trust probably does deserve its own article, not only because it has its own particular rules, but also its own particular remedies. But at the moment the subject is covered better in Fiduciary than it is in Trust law. --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Major re-write / re-structuring

I've bitten the bullet and made some major changes. I thought the content was often unsound, the structure very unclear, and the style made many parts unnecessarily confusing.

I have:

1. re-written the first paragraph;
2. re-written History;
3. inserted Significance;
4. re-written Basic Principles (including moving and re-writing text from elsewhere);
5. added Types of Trust (note: this needs some input from someone who knows about trusts worldwide); and
6. moved Terminology to the foot of the page.

I have not removed anything of significance.

Remaining issues:

1. I think the sections on USA and UK trust law should be cleaned up considerably and probably moved to their own pages, with just a summary on this page (I know this has been discussed above);
2. The trust Purposes and Terminology sections need cleaning up.

Tom 9/2/2007

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Thiskey (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 February 2007

Yes, excellent work, well done: a definite improvement.

A few thoughts/misgivings:

1. I don't like the move of "Terminology" to the bottom of the page. I would put it above "Purposes": many people use an understanding of the terminology as their means of understanding a subject as a whole: I know that is my learning method. I'd prefer to see the bits we're eventually going to split out, namely the jurisdictional stuff, at the bottom of the page.
2. I'm afraid I don't like the "Types of Trust" section, for several reasons. Firstly, this isn't a classification: just someone's (unsourced) perception of what types of trusts are most common, and even then only in one jurisdiction. The term "accumulation and maintenance trust" is obsolescent as a result of Finance Act 2006. And what about Unit Trusts: surely they have a cultural significance greater than some of those listed here? The section is well written and I don't think it should be removed, instead I'd like to see the text merged into "Terminology" and "Purposes".
3. Just a minor point, but it would be easier to follow what you are doing if you made your edits one section at a time. I found it a bit tricky, using the edit summary, to work out specifically what you'd changed.
4. I agree with you that your good offices would be useful in cleaning up "Terminology" and "Purposes": I did the last version of those when I did a merge on this page last year, so I don't think I can offer to help, much, sorry.

Any thoughts? AndyJones 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello all.

As a US Estate & Trust Attorney and new Wikipedia addict, I was curious what the status of this project is. I would be happy to be of some assistance.

Allen B. (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific jurisdictions

I know that I have previously argued against doing exactly this, but I am going to suggest that we do split off the "individual" jurisdiction articles. However, to keep them within the umbrella, I suggest we push them down into sub-pages which can be linked from the main page. This would also mean that there should be less of a temptation to fill the sub-pages up with stuff already adequately covered in the main article.

So the theory is that we would start with four new sub-pages:

• Trust law/The United States
• Trust law/Civil Law Jurisdictions
• Trust law/Australia
• Trust law/United Kingdom (should probably be re-named Trust law/England and Wales)

and obviously others could later be added as needed. I also think (probably discuss for another day) that a lot of the stuff in the individual jurisdiction sub-sections could then get copied back into the primary article, and internationalised appropriately. What does everyone else think?

--Legis (talk - contributions) 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a good proposal: I'm in favour. (I agree that "England and Wales" (not "United Kingdom") is right, also.) AndyJones 14:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, have done it. It is all a bit ugly, and needs some tidying up, but it's a start. I have refrained from categorising the sub-pages separately, but logically this should be done eventually if only to link them to their "home" jurisdictions. --Legis (talk - contributions) 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Trustafarian

Trustafarian redirects here, but it is never mentioned in the article. It should be explained what a "trustafarian" is, in this article, or the redirect is improper and should be deleted. —msikma (user, talk) 18:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should not redirect here. Trust law != Trustafarian. Since this is over a year old without comment, I'm un-redirecting it. Kwertii (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust in Land

There need not be two trustees for a trust in land. The minimum is one trustee holding the land on trust for one beneficiary. Nor is it necessary to have two trustees in order to sell the land. As the trustee is the legal owner, he can freely alienate the land. Two trustees are a condition for overreaching, not for establishing or operating a trust in land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.246.134 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right; there is no general rule that a trust in land must have at least two trustees. I have removed that language. Famspear (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange Language for an Encyclopedia

"Some asset protection is legal and (arguably) moral, while some asset protection is illegal and/or (arguably) immoral." Beyond the word "legal", is there any point in saying "some types are arguably moral, others aren't"? Does it actually contribute anything to an encyclopedic article? --165.123.187.132 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and since this suggestion is 20 months old with no counterpoint, I have removed it. 64.9.237.102 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

History of trust law

Somebody removed the "History" section. Perhaps they put it somewhere. There is a suggestion somewhere for a separate history article. Even so there should be a short summary-style history section in the main article. Any comments or thoughts?Cutler (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

/* History */ Removed Islamic apologetic spam

I've just gone through a half dozen treatments of the waqf, including one book solely devoted to the institution. None of them mentioned the "hidden origins of the common law trust in the waqf" theory, so I think this can safely be dismissed as a fringe theory put in for Islamic apologetic reasons. In fact the book I read about the waqf, "The birth of a legal institution: the formation of the waqf ..." mentions various scholarly opinions on the origins of the waqf in Roman and Sasanid law.Jayzames (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check out the sources and purge that crazy garbage. I always thought that assertion was fishy but never got around to double-checking the literature myself. The trust is clearly an institution indigenous to England. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Material removed from article.

I removed the following anon-added material from the article, primarily because it is all-caps, but also because it seems to be a contentious claim, worthy of a citation:

SEE ALSO THE WAFJ AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD CENTURIES PRIOR. NOTE SOME ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENGLISH TRUST WAS CREATED NOT BY JUDGES, BUT RATHER BY PROPERTY OWNERS ATTEMPTING TO AVOID TAXES.

Cheers! bd2412 T 00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose merger with Living Trust

Can I propose that we merge living trust into this article? Lawdroid (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Goodwill trust

The linked page says "This type of entity was first devised by Link Egglepple Starbureiy in 2010 to describe the creation of the United Under Economy trust. Before this, there was no mention of such a statute anywhere in literature or common law.". No evidence for a statute, this may have been created to use here? Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

For an article of this length, it has remarkably few referenced sources. I'm interested in reading more about particular topics, but don't know where this information came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.208.122 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope and Context

May I suggest that this page needs a revamp because it conceives of a trust as something related to will and testaments and is situated in a particular paradigm of thought that does not represent what a trust really is. Unit trusts, for example, are widely used in funds management and can even be listed on stock exchanges. There are a number of other definitions of trust associated with the disambiguation page for the word that, in the scope of the broader meaning of the entity should probably be absorbed and explained within the context of a single page called for all Trusts. At the moment, the information on Wikipedia regarding the definition of this type of entity is incomplete. Pkearney (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a "unit trust" is a "trust", although I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean here. Do you mean that everything with the word "trust" in its name should be included, or are you just saying that this page lacks information on commercial uses of trusts? Lawdroid (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom you are speaking, but I don't think a "unit trust" is a "trust" as covered by "trust law". On the other hand, trusts are a more expansive concept than just "living trusts", "testamentary trusts", "spendthrift trusts", etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A unit trust is actually a very simple kind of trust, with a few specific features. It exists because under UK tax law such a trust functions as what Americans would term a "pass-through entity". I don't know what you mean by "trusts are a more expansive concept than [list of types of trusts]". Not to be offensive, but it sounds like neither you nor Pkearney know very much about trust law, and your criticisms of this page remain vague (when there are plenty of concrete problems with it). Lawdroid (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I think that just like there's the general law of contract and specific contracts (employment, insurance, consumer, sales, etc) there's a general trust law, and then specific trusts (pensions, unit trusts, family trusts, testamentary, etc) all of which should be included in a page like this. The distinctions between the general and the specific are essentially different implied terms and compulsory regulation, which is to suit the subject matter of the transaction and the relative positions of the parties. Wikidea 02:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Trusts, for the most part, have much less in the way of implied terms based on their specific usage - in England there is basically one set of implied terms, applicable to all trusts, unless specifically excluded, or excluded by necessary implication of the drafting of the settlment. Most of the named types of trusts are tags for common forms of trusts, describing their express terms. Lawdroid (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Historical Origin

Hello. I tried to add a bit of history in terms of the concept of a trust back in September of this year and was immediately shut down ( see history of warnings on my page and history at this article ). I'd like to reintroduce the concept and its source to show that, perhaps, this is one of the earliest concepts of the idea of what we know today termed a "trust." Aside from what only faith can believe ( verse 5 ), please look at what is depicted and the outcome in the favor of the lady whose land and property was lost. Here it is;

3 At the end of the seven years she came back from the land of the Philistines and went to appeal to the king for her house and land. 4 The king was talking to Gehazi, the servant of the man of God, and had said, “Tell me about all the great things Elisha has done.” 5 Just as Gehazi was telling the king how Elisha had restored the dead to life, the woman whose son Elisha had brought back to life came to appeal to the king for her house and land.

Gehazi said, “This is the woman, my lord the king, and this is her son whom Elisha restored to life.” 6 The king asked the woman about it, and she told him.

Then he assigned an official to her case and said to him, “Give back everything that belonged to her, including all the income from her land from the day she left the country until now.”

- 2 Kings 8: 1-6

We see she 'appealed' to the highest ranking bureaucrat ( the king ) and there was an eye witness to substantiate her appeal. One could read in the history of this wiki entry that I only wanted to include the specific language speaking to what can be conceptualized as a 'trust' when the king restores the woman's land / property and includes income derived while she was absent. Isn't this exactly what one does when one entrusts their property into a legal entity and assigns a trustee to oversee it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs)

Dear HafizHanif: Whether this Bible text describes "exactly what one does when one entrusts their property into a legal entity and assigns a trustee to oversee it" or not, it appears that this is your own Original Research. The Bible itself does not say that this is part of the history of the concept of a trust, etc. Instead, you would need to find a previously published third party source that claims that the Biblical text you quoted is an early example of a description of a trust, etc. Otherwise, it seems to be your own prohibited Original Research. Famspear (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Famspear. I understand the need and legitimacy of a third-party source. We can read that what I'm pointing out isn't an obvious reach to form what has been centuries later termed a "trust." I would like to note that finding something published to support Original Research is itself prohibitive. It defeats the use of logic and thinking in concluding what we can read and understand for ourselves. Would you agree the framework I am pointing out is consistent with the idea of today's trust?--HafizHanif (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just visited to see if anything else regarding the earliest concept of a trust has been added. Here is a source / citation I found and will be adding to the article page:

On the testimony of Gehazi the servant of Elisha that the woman was the owner of these lands, the king returns all her property to her. From the fact that the king orders his eunuch to return to the woman all her property and the produce of her land from the time that she left ...

-- HafizHanif (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Merger with Trusts and estates

Easier to maintain quality with less duplication. II | (t - c) 00:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would support this. Trusts and estates appears to exist only because these subjects are lumped together in US law schools. Lawdroid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, trusts and estates is a US term which covers more than trusts law. Take out the "estates" and put it in the relevant page on property, or wills or whatever. But this page can't be renamed or moved, I'd think. Wikidea 11:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Plain English

I would appreciate help with making the introduction/lead more readable. Lawdroid had reverted my edits, saying that because this is a legal topic, "It is the place for legal jargon." Based on Wikipedia standards, I disagree... especially for the lead. As such, I have restored my clarified version.

If my rewriting of the lead has removed any key information appropriate for the lead, then I would appreciate other editors helping by adding that element in plain language.

Here are key references.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style."
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal: "Use plain language, appropriate for a lay audience. Consider Wikibooks if you want to write a textbook."
• Jargon: "Jargon is 'the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity occupational or social group.'"
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
• Wikipedia:Use plain English: "Wikipedia articles ought to be written in plain English. Jargon, buzzwords, tautologies and vague abstractions ought to be avoided to the greatest extent possible."
• Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable: "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience.... If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it."

Wshallwshall (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am normally skeptical of well-intended simplifications of legal articles on Wikipedia, but after carefully reviewing the old and new versions, I feel that User:Wshallwshall's new lead for this article is much better. I concur in his/her revisions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. II | (t - c) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article closely, but I also agree. As currently re-written, the lead describes the basics of the topic in a straightforward and accurate way. Famspear (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Remuneration Trusts

This section reads in part: "Trusts for the benefit of directors and employees or companies or their families or dependents". Should it not instead be: "Trusts for the benefit of directors and employees OF companies or their families or dependents"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eponymous-Archon (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Trust law

Cyberbot II has detected links on Trust law which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8644574_subcontractors-against-contractor-not-paying.html

  Triggered by \behow\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Trust law

Cyberbot II has detected links on Trust law which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8644574_subcontractors-against-contractor-not-paying.html

  Triggered by \behow\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trust law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120414222136/http://www.skadden.com/Cimages/siteFile/Skadden_Insights_Special_Edition_Dodd-Frank_Act1.pdf to http://www.skadden.com/Cimages/siteFile/Skadden_Insights_Special_Edition_Dodd-Frank_Act1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Poor-quality edits by User:Burt Harris

User:Burt Harris has created a mess in this article that looks like possible vandalism. Unfortunately, User:ImperfectlyInformed reverted my revert of those edits.

If User:ImperfectlyInformed is acting in good faith and not trying to be complicit in vandalizing Wikipedia, then it is User:ImperfectlyInformed's problem to clean up a mess that is now no longer in compliance with the Manual of Style. If I don't see some improvement within a month, then I'm going to revert again back to the last good version. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the changes made by Burt as improvement of the content and agree how that is less optimal in terms of style. However i strongly prefer content quality over form, so i support imperfectlyimforned's re-instatement of the content and invite everyone to furher improve on that. --L.tak (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You made at least nine spelling and grammar errors in only two sentences. Those are just the obvious ones I counted in 20 seconds. Looks like you're not qualified to fix the mess Burt made. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I was working from a mobile device with a autocorrect set to Dutch. You are free to correct my edits if you wish however.L.tak (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Coolcaesar, I think the issues are fixed. This may seem rude to point out, but a lot of people have mentioned that your comments and tone violate Wikipedia's core policy of civility, which is (in my opinion, I doubt I'm the only one) more serious than making edits which don't meet the style guide. I know I dropped a comment to you about it on your talkpage probably a year ago and you never responded. I hope you can understand how that makes people feel, and treat good-faith newbies with particular kindness. II | (t - c) 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that we must always remember this is an encyclopedia we are expounding. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing Marbury v. Madison.) In this case, the prior lead paragraph was a lucid, clean quick-and-dirty intro that gave novices a clean overview of the "big picture" concepts. Then they could scroll down to dive into the really heavy stuff. That's how you write a good article. The current lead paragraph is reasonably lucid to an attorney but will make nearly all laypersons' eyes glaze over. In general, most people find the law boring unless they're discussing their own legal problems. It's really important to get to the point, but in a way they can follow.

What is the purpose of a encyclopedia? The last time I checked it was to inform. If you've lost your audience's attention in the first paragraph, then you're already failed and everything that comes after that is wasted. That's why I was irritated when User:Burt Harris broke the article and then you countermanded my reversion of that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A, so it was not the manual of style, but the content that was bothering you. That's good to know and as far as the lede is concerned, I agree. Maybe indeed we should add part of the things that were in the original lede back there. L.tak (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved most of the earlier lede-text in, but leaving the "important innovation" part out (we'd need a text book on international historical legal innovations for that as a source;-) ) and moving the Common law part (10 years ago that was true, but now there are several civil law trusts). I am not fully sure about the paragraph handling "self dealing". Can anyone indicate whether that presents an international POV, or just a few countries? I refer to this text "The trustee is given legal title to the trust property, but is obligated to act for the good of the beneficiaries. The trustee may be compensated and have expenses reimbursed, but otherwise must turn over all profits from the trust properties. Trustees who violate this fiduciary duty are self-dealing. Courts can reverse self dealing actions, order profits returned, and impose other sanctions" L.tak (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with L.tak that if the content is an issue, it would have been helpful to understand that. That self-dealing part is wound up tight into what a trust and a fiduciary duty involves. If civil law countries say they have trusts but don't have fiduciary duty, I'm not so sure common law lawyers would agree that the purported trusts are in fact trusts. I've tried to look for civil law information but it is very difficult to find, much less interpret. I think civil law "trusts" should be confined to a particular section of this article. Trusts are by definition wrapped up into a long history of common law which does not exist in the civil law world as far as I know, so it will be probably impossible to say much about trusts that applies to both. II | (t - c) 01:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirmation regarding the duty to protect, I just wanted the confirmation, because the info was removed before with the argument that -in my words- "a trust varies by country and we shouldn't simplify too much". It is good not to have the civil law trust explicitly in the lede, as they are not sufficiently relevant for that, but -as they clearly were inspired on existing trusts- I didn't think it was correct to exclude them from the lede text with the original text, "In civil law, a trust... (...)". I have checked the Curacao trust (and thus the Sint Maarten trust, as the proposal stemmed from when they were still Netherlands Antilles), and there a clear duty to protect is included, including measures to avoid conflict of interest with the trustee's own legal person. The main difference seems the in writing requirements: civil law doesn't like trusts that simply "arise" or can be concluded orally, so -consistent with the Hague Trust Convention, an "in writing" requirement is included. L.tak (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think we can put it in the lead as long we have good sources and explain the differences clearly — ideally something at a high level of abstraction which discusses the relationships and differences. :) I imagine that the laws will be cross-fertilized over time especially with the influence of multinational corporations, although the law can change incredibly slowly. Corporate law could be a good place to look for inspiration, since corporate structures are an abstraction of the trust concept. II | (t - c) 06:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a good idea, but it may also be very complicated. The civil law trusts clearly derive from the common law ones, but there is no single way in which they were implemented. Just as there may be very substantial differences between a Jersey trust and a Nova Scotia trust (I have no idea), there may be differences between the Liechtenstein and the Curacao trust. The text as we have it now seems to apply generally, so as far as a lede is concerned, that looks ok to me. In the mean time I will look out for generalized high level of abstraction sources that would discuss the trust development in different jurisdictions, but I am not very optimistic there is very much to be found... L.tak (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Purposes

I have just added two new items on the numbered list under 'Purposes'. My logic was that the trust is much more expansive and wide-reaching than most realise, and this article should reflect this. All homes subject to mortgage are owned on trust, all companies are owned on trust, credit cards, bank accounts, in fact I think I read something like 75% of the wealth in the UK is owned on trust. It is important for this article to reflect that, and not fall into the trap of a too narrow view of what a trust is. Shayday~enwiki (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking that out because it appears to violate Wikipedia policies WP:NOR and WP:V. You can put that back in if you can locate reported, published cases from appellate courts that stands for those propositions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Both statements are demonstrably wrong as a matter of English law. In Foley v Hill the House of Lords authoritatively confirmed that a bank receiving money on deposit does not hold those sums as trustee. And in relation to companies - well - take your pick. Every case from Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1896) to Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2013) confirms that a company is an absolute owner and not a mere trustee for the shareholders. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear user Shayday~enwiki: I agree with Coolcaesar and Legis. Further, if your logic for making edits to this article is that you believe "that the trust is much more expansive and wide-reaching than most realise, and this article should reflect this", then you need to re-think your role here. You may want to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And, no it is incorrect to say that "all homes subject to mortgage are owned on trust." It is incorrect to say that "all companies are owned on trust." Sounds like you may have been reading unreliable material. Famspear (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added "statutory business trust" to this list. I belatedly realized that this section is really about the purposes behind the creation of trusts rather than a list of trust types. Please feel free to amend as appropriate. Breakthegate (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Introduction

The introduction to this article needs work. It should be written using accessible language, in such a way that it defines and explains, in broad terms, what a trust is, what it is for, in what situations they are found, etc. If the level of legal/economic knoweldge required to comprehend the article is such that someone possessing that knowledge would already know full well what trusts are and how they function, then the introduction is redundant, it serves only the reader that does not require it.

I have added cleanup tags and a couple of comments embedded in the wikitext to aid whichever editor takes up this task.

Apologies for not making changes to the body of the text myself, I don't want to seem lazy, but I'd rather leave it to someone with more expertise in the topic who can make better judgement calls than I on what should be prioritized, and what the most demonstrative/representative examples would be; I figured this would be better than nothing, to draw attention to the issue and get the ball rolling. I wouldn't want to get stuck in to it myself, and end up leaving the article with a better written but less accurate/informative introduction – I am not an expert in this area and I think it requires someone who knows enough to pick out what the key facts really are that need to be focussed on in the introduction.

the 4 main problems as I see them right now are:

1) a use of technical verbiage without explanation (or example) in a way that is not accessible to the layman
2) poor organisation of information: the paragraph ordering is seemingly random at the moment, so what could be coherent threads of thought are instead broken up and spliced between multiple paragraphs with interjections in between.
3) excess detail/information about specifics in the lead, which should instead give a broad overview and leave the intricacies to the body (Much of the specific, detailed information currently found in this introduction e.g. the nuances of different types of trusts, specific differences in how trusts operate as legal instruments in different US states, perhaps even some of the history could be moved to the article body.)
4) USA centric. It's not always clear when the text is referring to America specifically or to trusts in general. And for that matter, to what extent do trusts exist in which countries and legal systems? Is this article about a worldwide legal instrument, a common law legal instrument, a US legal instrument? From the lead, it's not clear.

These issues could be tackled independently or altogether. Some things will need to be expanded, others moved, others deleted altogether.

I hope this is helpful to whomever reads this, as a starting point. Good luck!

--Tomatoswoop (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up comment:

Here is the most recent article revision with a servicable intro that I could find: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trust_law&oldid=785803370 . Honourable mention: this earlier revision from 2013 cleaning up the intro (consensus on this talk page from then was that this was a good revision) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trust_law&oldid=567963803 . Perhaps these might (in addition to the article at present) form a useful basis upon which to construct a decent lead to this article.

--Tomatoswoop (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To respond to User:Tomatoswoop: I reverted your edit because it's clear that you do not fully understand WP:NOT. In particular, you put in this text after the lead paragraph: "Here would be a good place to give a concrete example that demonstrates these terms in practice." That is asking for a clear violation of this paragraph in WP:NOT (note the text I have bolded below): "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." If an example is appropriate at all in this article, it should be presented farther down, not in the lead.

I see no problem with the introductory paragraphs as a whole, in terms of how it is a mostly accurate and readable high-level summary of the subject, but I concur that the introduction has two major issues. First, the sequence in which the material is presented is incoherent. Second, there are two passages that are too specific to the United States (because this is a subject common to virtually all major common law jurisdictions). --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)