Deeds

doodling

Hi,

Having the house in the name of the trustees has exactly the same legal meaning as having it in the name of the trust. This is because the trustees own the assets in the trust.

You're correct that it may be more convenient to have the house in the name of the trust rather than of the trustees in some circumstances (and the opposite in other circumstances) but neither approach is wrong.

I agree that using the name of the trust is probably less confusing but if the trustees will eventually inherit then using the names of the trustees can make things simpler when the trust ends.

SeniorSam

The purpose of gifting property into Trust is mainly to protect the asset until a certain time. In this case, if the property was registered in the name s of the children, rather than the Trust, then then that becomes an asset of the children.

Should the children get into financial difficulty, or divorce, then that asset can be claimed on and the life interest for the spouse can be in difficulty. This is the reason why the Will does not gift directly to the children.

NorthYorkie

SeniorSam said:

The purpose of gifting property into Trust is mainly to protect the asset until a certain time. In this case, if the property was registered in the name s of the children, rather than the Trust, then then that becomes an asset of the children.

Should the children get into financial difficulty, or divorce, then that asset can be claimed on and the life interest for the spouse can be in difficulty. This is the reason why the Will does not gift directly to the children.

I think you are overlooking the fact that the Land registry only records the legal owners of the property, not necessarily the beneficial owners. It the property is registered in the names of the children, they are merely the trustees for the mother who has a life interest in the property

doodling

Hi,

The property is already an asset of the children.

If the children are trustees then the property is (part) owned by the children no matter what name is on the title at the land registry, that is how trusts work.

A trust is not a separate legal entity (e.g. like a limited company) which can own things, all the assets are owned by the trustees.

If the children got into financial difficulty then their creditors would come to try and sell the house, discover it is held in trust and move on. I don't know trust law well enough to know whether the creditors could lay claim to the residue of the trust if the children were also remaindermen, but that doesn't really affect the trust itself.

This discussion is effectively about whether it matters if the title says "son of Bob" or "Richard" where Richard is Bob's only son. They both mean the same.

I do agree that in many (probably most) cases it can avoid confusion to use the name of the trust rather than the names of the trustees, but using the names of the trustees is not wrong and has no material effect on anything else.