Tenants in Common & Title restriction @ LR

John_Pierpoint

So C and BNP are the same person ?

It would depend on the terms of the trust, but it would seem that the intention was that B would enjoy free accommodation for life.

As I see it, everyone is adult so it is just a matter of documenting the new legal situation, so that when the unexpected happens (bankruptcy/death of B ?), the trust is able to be in the loop.
It would be helpful if the second trustee were a representative of the eventual beneficiaries.

spectre

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

So C and BNP are the same person ?

It would depend on the terms of the trust, but it would seem that the intention was that B would enjoy free accommodation for life.

As I see it, everyone is adult so it is just a matter of documenting the new legal situation, so that when the unexpected happens (bankruptcy/death of B ?), the trust is able to be in the loop.
It would be helpful if the second trustee were a representative of the eventual beneficiaries.

No C & BNP are different people , B as written in the will only actually owns %50 of the original property , so it was a simple case of splitting the assets upon selling or re-investing the cash into a new property (via the same trust detail)

zzzLazyDaisy

spectre wrote: »

B wants to settle in cash what should have been the 50% but is only offering 25% at this stage (I assume because the other is re-invested in the newly purchased property)

In that case, one possible way round this would be to accept the cash (on the basis of a bird in the hand, etc) and to have the trust re-instated in respect of the balance. The trust deed should really provide for at least one independent trustee - perhaps a solicitor - bearing in mind that the beneficiary of a trust cannot also be a trustee.

zzzLazyDaisy

spectre wrote: »

No C & BNP are different people , B as written in the will only actually owns %50 of the original property , so it was a simple case of splitting the assets upon selling or re-investing the cash into a new property (via the same trust detail)

I think BNP is a bit of a red herring as far as the trust is concerned.

So B & C are trustees - they allowed the first property to be sold and the trust proceeds to be used to buy B's new property but failed to comply with the provisions of the trust deed, which was to register a new trust over B's new property protecting the interests of the beneficiaries of the original trust?

spectre

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I think BNP is a bit of a red herring as far as the trust is concerned.

So B & C are trustees - they allowed the first property to be sold and the trust proceeds to be used to buy B's new property but failed to comply with the provisions of the trust deed, which was to register a new trust over B's new property protecting the interests of the beneficiaries of the original trust?

Yes I got BNP wrong in my statements I will amend them in a moment, But your right B&C are the trustees - C siphoned back to B what should have been the deceased A`s beneficiaries share of the sale proceeds.

So B now has 100% , and he invested most of the proceeds in a purchase with BNP & did not protect the interests of the beneficiaries of the original trust on the new property
The sale of A&B property was approx 1year ago & todate nothing has been done to either settle in cash or protect the interests of the beneficiaries of the original trust on the new property.

John_Pierpoint

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The trust deed should really provide for at least one independent trustee - perhaps a solicitor - bearing in mind that the beneficiary of a trust cannot also be a trustee.

I don't think that bit is quite right for two reasons:

1. My grandmother died nearly 50 years ago when I was still a teenager, so obviously not an executor, however for many years I have been my father's replacement as trustee and one of two major beneficiaries of the trust arrangements her will created. [Needless to say grandmother's will was the victim of changes in law, created by posturing politicians - but now is not the moment to spend the rest of the morning explaining].

2. I have two books on Trusts that I acquired for the grand sum of £1 when changes in law made some parts of their 1990 copyright obsolete:

.........these restrictions apart, the settlor may appoint /B]trustees[B as he pleases. Traditionally, certain appointments, such as a beneficiary, the relative of a beneficiary, or the solicitor to the trust, have been regarded as undesirable by the courts, but they are not invalid and are commonly made in practice.
[and they come for free and have an interest in maximising the value of their eventual inheritance].

dzug1

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

- bearing in mind that the beneficiary of a trust cannot also be a trustee.

???

When FiL died, Mrs Dzug and MiL were beneficiaries of a trust of which they were the sole trustees - quite legally and the only possible trustees unless they chose otherwise

zzzLazyDaisy

I stand corrected. A prime example of why I always refuse to give advice by PM!

observations_from_a_hill

spectre, have you been able to identify person C? Any action you decide to take should be against both B and C.

How was the original purchase by A and B funded? Did they each have a separate savings pot, or did either of them borrow from family?

I shall now disappear for a while, since I have never worked out how to navigate the site whilst logged in! Everyone is welcome to help me on this.

spectre

yup we identified C & the fact the trust has been breached , Waiting on solicitor action , thanks for all the replies once its concluded I will post back