Law of Succession pt.2

Q2) “The common law attitude to long term or perpetual trusts was that in general such trusts were upheld. The existing restrictions on trust provisions (in relation to accumulations and successive lifrents) are statutory in origin”. Explain those restrictions and the arguments for their retention or whether they should be reformed or repealed.

In England and Wales, the beneficiary in general is able to claim from the trust the income generated from the property when they turn 18. The law of Scotland differs from this as there is no equivalent entitlement to the income of trust at the age of 18 however, scot law does limit the accumulation period.

An accumulation of income has rules derived from the Accumulation Act 1880 and 1848 act. Accumulation is adding income to a capital fund rather than distributing it. This act was introduced to remedy situations when this occurs. An example of this being put to play was illustrated in the Thellusson v Woodford 1805 case. Mr T directed the income of his property to be accumulated during the lives of his children and grandchildren. The accumulation fund amounted to £600,000 which continued over 60 years. The bequest was held to be valid. In order to prevent property being distributed like this in the future, the parliament passed the “The Thellusson Act 1800” to prohibit perpetuities. The courts summaries both of the above acts as serving the purpose to prevent allowing accumulation to continue growing over a certain duration of time in order to generate mass capital for the benefit of a generation yet to come.

Limiting the periods allows the funds to be actually be distributed to a beneficiary rather than being held doing nothing collecting dust. The relevant provisions which deal with the specific periods of time are The Trusts (s) Act 1961 s5 and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (S) 1966 s6. Both acts working together, place six possible periods to prevent accumulation. It will be up to the courts to decide which to enact depending on the facts of the case.

Accumulations limited by the Trusts (S) Act 1961 s5 sets out four periods. The first states that if the deed is an inter vivos deed, the accumulation may continue throughout the life of the grantor. If the accumulation continues after death one of the permitted periods may apply however, it can continue if the direction makes a reference to a minority which will not apply the rules of Age of Legal Capacity 1991 Act, instead it will take the definition for section 6 of the act which states a minority is 21, it will continue after death.

Section 5 (b) allows the accumulation to continue for a term of 21 years after the death of the grantor. This is illustrated in Carey’s Trs v Rose 1957 where Mr C directed his trustees to hold the residue of his estate for his son for when he turns 21 however he failed to give direction to the income of the estate. The son was born two years after the death of Mr C which lead to the period amounting to 23 years. The question was whether this was illegal. It was held that any income subsequent to a period of 21 years must fall into intestacy. The direction is void if it’s over 21 years and the person who, if the direction had not been made, would be entitled to the income will receive it.

Continue reading “Law of Succession pt.2”