Shares problem

Millie_2

When my son was a little lad he wanted to buy some shares....lol

So my hubby took him to the bank and bought the shares with sons birthday money as requested, which had to go in my hubbys name re my sons name.

Since then my hubby and i divorced and I have no idea of his wherabouts~havent seen him for years :rolleyes:
Each year we get sent cheques from shares, that we cant cash as they have hubbys name on.

I think my son would now like to sell his shares but would that be possible as i cant get my husband to sign them over so will the fact that my son has reached adult age be the only consideration needed to put them in his sole name and then sell them?

Any ideas?

deemy2004

If the shares are in your hubbys name and he is refusing to sign them over i.e. transfer then theres nothing much you can do about it, unless they are worth a lot in which case you will probably have to go to court.

jonesMUFCforever

Fact; the shares are in your husband's name.#
The only person authorised to deal with them is him.
Sorry probably not the answer you wanted to hear.
Out of curiousity can you tell us what company the money is invested in and the amount of shares held - info will be on the dividend counterfoil? (This will then tell you whether it is worth pursuing the matter or not)

Millie_2

Thanks for taking the time to reply guys and the responses were much as i thought, still it was worth looking into wasnt it?

The shares are not worth much, they are with Guiness flight trust i believe, but now my son is a very poor Law university student, i guess every penny would have helped...lol

Thanks again for your responses, they are very much appreciated :xmassign:

cheerfulcat

IANAL but it seems to me that if the shares are held in the fathers name *re* son's name they are held in trust for the son...there is no justification for his dad to hold on to them if your son is now of age. I suggest that you get on to the company's registrar and ask what the position really is ( registrar's name should be on the dividend counterfoil ).

Millie_2

Thanks for the advice cheerfulcat, i did think we might stand more of a chance because the shares are re sons name like you said and because he is now 19.

Its so annoying as the children have saving accounts ect and bits and bobs all with his(fathers) name on, some re our sons name and some not, but the Halifax have said 'no can do' for the savings accounts,but i still have hope to get the shares sorted out, fingers crossed.

I dont want to take the matter further legally as i have just spent six years doing that to get his name off 'our' joint affairs and believe me that is a costly experience when they have gone AWOL and you have to get the judge to sign your documentation for you :eek: _pale_

chudies

cheerfulcat wrote:

IANAL but it seems to me that if the shares are held in the fathers name *re* son's name they are held in trust for the son...there is no justification for his dad to hold on to them if your son is now of age. I suggest that you get on to the company's registrar and ask what the position really is ( registrar's name should be on the dividend counterfoil ).

agree with above
law requires "held on trust" for a few reasons......mental capacity, age etc (actually your son is studying law, ask him to ask his equity and trusts lecturer, so always like to show they know the law in practice as well as academics)
and i am sure your son would qualify
could you write to the registrar (son should write) and ask for them to be transferred to him

cheerfulcat

chudies wrote:

(actually your son is studying law, ask him to ask his equity and trusts lecturer, so always like to show they know the law in practice as well as academics)

What an excellent idea...

Best of luck with this, Millie, and perhaps you'll let us know how it pans out?

Cheerfulcat

jonesMUFCforever

RE means nothing in law!
They are in fathers name and only HE can sell or change them over to his son.
There are many reasons why it is not desirable for the shares to automatically transfer to son on him obtaining the age of majority.

cheerfulcat

ejones999 wrote:

RE means nothing in law!
They are in fathers name and only HE can sell or change them over to his son.
There are many reasons why it is not desirable for the shares to automatically transfer to son on him obtaining the age of majority.

Are you sure, ejones? As I said, IANAL ( perhaps you are, though? ), but I understood that shares held in this fashion ( that is, with the child's name as well as the parent's ) are held in a bare trust and that the father as trustee is bound by law to do as the child requests...I didn't suggest that the shares were automatically transferred to the son on his reaching adulthood, only that the father is now required to act as directed by him.

jonesMUFCforever

cheerfulcat

I think it is the other way round.
The father could turn round and say that the son is not capable of looking after his financial affairs and that is why they are in his name re.
In fact there is no reason why a re account should be for a child and adult it could be for 2 or more adults.
The father could also turn round and say that the shares are held for a specific reason eg a marriage gift, or a gift when child turns a certain age or even something as morose as to help father pay his funeral bill etc etc.
There is no getting round IMO that the father has total control until he says otherwise UNLESS there is a written deed as to what would happen to the shares in any given circumstance.