Trust past 18?

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

Wrong on both counts.



And I didn't advocate any such thing. I said the exact opposite in post #26 and #28. It's a bit of a waste of time to start personal arguments with other posters if you aren't going to read what they actually said.



I have complete faith that a STEP member will do everything possible to establish the client's needs, providing they involve setting up a trust. When you are a hammer salesman, all your clients' needs look like nails.

Nothing to do with personal arguments. You have, and continue to, make glib, and disparaging remarks about the legal profession and how people should ignore their advice. Of course there are bad members of any profession but to suggest that half of solicitors are wrong just illustrates how worthless your own advice is. The old phrase "Free advice is worth what you paid for it" comes to mind.

SevenOfNine

Brighty wrote: »

What good is a bare trust for young children who's parents have died, it's no good getting a huge lump sum at 18, if they've had to live in poverty until then because whoever became their guardian struggles to afford bringing up 2 more kids. I want a discretionary trust so that the monthly rental income can subsidise their upbringing, if needed. The trustees can then decide at what age 18-25 that they have the need and/or responsibility to hand over full control. If my kids are stupid enough to take the trustees to court to get it early and end up costing the trust, therefore themselves, thousands of pounds, then they deserve to lose the money the court case would cost.
Also, as my son has learning difficulties, he may grow up to lead a normal life, he may not. so he could need more money than his sister when he's older, if he can't work for example. I'd like the trustees to have the option, if my daughter is comfortable, to funnel more of the money towards my son

Of course, it should be remembered that there are many of us who are sensible enough with money to have enough of it to be investigating the safest/most sensible way of leaving it to our loved ones.

By the same token, we are sensible enough to be capable of making the correct decisions regarding how this will be done, & I've no doubt you're doing that Mr Blighty - as have we.

The short answer to the question in your original post was.......there isn't one, no relevant LAW.

Post #26 contains so much garbage based on 'assumptions' I can't even be bothered to respond to any of it. :beer:

Malthusian

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

You have, and continue to, make glib, and disparaging remarks about the legal profession and how people should ignore their advice.

Kindly quote where I said that people should ignore solicitors' advice.

There is a world of difference between questioning advice and ignoring it.

securityguy

SevenOfNine wrote: »

The short answer to the question in your original post was.......there isn't one, no relevant LAW.

The UK is a common law jurisdiction, so judgements by senior courts have the same authority as statute. Most contract law derives from judgements, not statute, so if your claim is that if there is no statute then it doesn't exist, it is to put it mildly an idiosyncratic position.