Locking it away until she is 24

ValiantSon · 13 May 2018 at 2:07PM

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Not everyone does so it was perhaps worth reminding people what you meant when you asserted that categorically it was theft:

OK, so you know what's provided for in the theft act, and that theft relates to someone having a dishonest intention to permantly deprive someone of their assets (with some relevant exceptions, which I included).

So you'd said it was theft and another poster reminded you what the definition of theft was. Most people on the thread probably don't believe the father has the intention to permanently deprive his daughter of £10,000.

Your counterpoint to the idea that theft had a certain meaning in relation to permanent deprivation -which would defeat your argument about theft if they did not have such dishonest intention - was that they might find it hard to prove they didn't have that dishonest intention to permanently deprive the daughter.

My observation is that it's probably only you thinking they do intend to permanently deprive, and a reasonable gathering of people here would not; ultimately if it came down to it in a court the burden of proof is not on the father (because it is very hard to prove a negative) but on a crown or private prosecution to prove it beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. So, the father 'having a difficult time proving their innocence' simply doesn't come up.

When you were reminded that the definition of theft - the crime you had asserted - involved a dishonest intention to permanently deprive, you did not feel able to say that you were correct to call it theft, because just like the rest of us you don't genuinely believe there is a dishonest intention to permanently deprive.

So instead, you tried to deflect from the challenge and make it about 'what you can prove' and that the father would find it difficult to prove their innocence.

After you made it about 'what you can prove', I pointed out that it is not on the father to prove their innocence but someone else to prove their guilt, which is unlikely to happen. But now you are complaining because you think I am suggesting it is about what you can prove and get away with. You were the one who made it about what can be proven, because you didn't like the fact that you are now uncertain about whether it is actually theft, and you don't like to back down.

You seem shocked and surprised by my attitude. If it helps, I can tell you now, if you at some point you give me your daughter's money to look after, I'll just spend it, consequences be damned.

You are still wrong about all of this, but true to form you continue with your sophistry and long rambling posts (concision is a valuable skill).

I cannot be bothered with this anymore. You will never concede that you are wrong and you will maintain that your suggestions are perfectly fair, even though they are illegal. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word, as I know that you crave that.

TheShape · 13 May 2018 at 2:20PM

Hypothetical question:

Money is moved into fathers account who fully intends to return money to daughter in 6 years time. Sometime in those 6 years father is declared bankrupt, divorces, claims means-tested benefits etc

Could this not cause some problem in demonstrating that the money is being held for the daughter and potentially not only causes difficulties but puts some or all of the funds at risk?

FB13 · 14 May 2018 at 12:06AM

ValiantSon wrote: »

And in that post he acknowledged that as the money wasn't his he had paid it into an account in the daughter's name. As a bare trust had been created he had no other option. (He could have skirted the issue by holding the funds in his own name, which is a very grey area, but he didn't). Discretionary trusts have to be set up carefully and would require the use of a solicitor for this purpose. Only a discretionary trust would keep the money locked away past the age of 18.

At the risk of wading into your argument, unless I missed something in a previous post, a discretionary trust wouldn't keep the money locked up past 18 either. It would be a straightforward application of Saunders v Vautier. In this case there is effectively no difference from the daughter asking for the money at 18 under a bare trust or under a discretionary trust.

EDIT: I missed that there is also a younger daughter.

Malthusian · 14 May 2018 at 8:27AM

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The sister who was the original source of the money and who is still alive to support the father's "story" gave some money to the father and they discussed that it would be given to the daughter but that the daughter should not be able to be 'touch' it until she was 24.

As described the daughter is fully entitled to access this money at 18. Saunders v Vautier.

The OP should either leave the money where it is, or assist his daughter in opening a new account in her name. If on turning 18 she chooses to spend the entire £10,000 on a new car, that's her choice. The OP has no more ability to stop her wasting her money than if the £10,000 came from the daughter's own wages.

Malthusian · 14 May 2018 at 8:45AM

In case it clarifies the trust issue: the aunt could have given the £10,000 to the OP absolutely, on the understanding that she'd like it to go to the daughter at 24, but that it was the OP's own money and he had discretion to give it to the daughter at 24, spend it on himself or chuck it down a well, like any other £10,000 of his own money.

However, by putting the money into a bare trust account in the name of the daughter, the OP rendered that moot. Either the aunt gave the money to the daughter, with the OP to act as bare trustee, and it has always been the daughter's at 18. Or she gave it to the OP absolutely, and the OP subsequently moved £10,000 of his own money into a bare trust account, and it has been the daughter's from that point. Either way the money is the daughter's and she is absolutely entitled to access it at 18.

(Although the OP really wants it to be the former because interest from money given by a parent to their child is mostly taxable on the parent; money given by aunts is not.)

*edit*

And the discussion about the legal definition of theft is a red herring. The relevant legislation here is the Trustee Act, not the Theft Act. The OP has an overriding legal duty to act in the interests of beneficiary, which doesn't include denying her access to money she has an absolute right to claim at any time (after turning 18).

steampowered · 14 May 2018 at 11:55AM

In the real world, if you just keep this money in an account until the young lady reaches 24, she will get the money when she is 24.

I doubt she is going to start legal proceedings when she is age 18.

bowlhead99 · 14 May 2018 at 12:14PM

Malthusian wrote: »

And the discussion about the legal definition of theft is a red herring. The relevant legislation here is the Trustee Act, not the Theft Act. The OP has an overriding legal duty to act in the interests of beneficiary, which doesn't include denying her access to money she has an absolute right to claim at any time (after turning 18).

I agree the theft act has nothing to do with it, if someone breaches their fiduciary duties that's a different issue to theft -it's why I was attempting to correct VS from repeatedly calling it a theft.

I'd agree with your second interpretation on that post of yours: that the aunt didn't create a bare trust with herself as settlor but merely gave it to the brother/father (as recipient, absolutely) so that he could make it available for the daughter at the age she suggested was appropriate (24) which was a condition she stipulated when giving it to him but couldn't really enforce him doing that as there was nothing in writing.

And then unfortunately the father not knowing what he was doing, made the clumsy mistake of putting it in the daughter's account for safekeeping even though he didn't actually intend for her to have access or ownership until her early twenties.

The argument to be made by the father is that he dumped it in the daughters account for safekeeping but it isn't the daughter's funds, it's only being held in that account as a loan from him and he will formally give it to her later as a gift from him to her when she is 24. It wasn't settled into the trust by him but merely loaned to the trust. While some will say that's a far fetched way of trying to weasel out of it, the daughter will presumably not complain too much anyway when the father explains the error/intention.

xylophone · 14 May 2018 at 12:20PM

In the real world, if you just keep this money in an account until the young lady reaches 24, she will get the money when she is 24.

I doubt she is going to start legal proceedings when she is age 18.

For tax reasons, the young woman needs to be made aware of the interest paid.

It may be that as the account is held in bare trust, she will be contacted by the bank/BS holding the account.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74243238#post74243238

The legal position is clear (Post 14) - really there is no more to say.

Malthusian · 14 May 2018 at 12:20PM

steampowered wrote: »

In the real world, if you just keep this money in an account until the young lady reaches 24, she will get the money when she is 24.

Unless of course the account was set up with her name on it, in which case she can ask the bank and they will hand it over.

Either way, depriving a grown adult of their own money is legally and morally inadvisable, even if you think you'll get away with it.

I doubt she is going to start legal proceedings when she is age 18.

We don't know anything about the daughter's relationship with her father or which would be more important to her - the relationship or ten grand.

If she sues her father for her money she will win, and her father will pay the costs. Not that it will get that far, because any reputable solicitor her father approached to defend himself would tell him to pay up.

FB13 · 14 May 2018 at 2:43PM

I hope posters here are not solicitors. There is some questionable law from several people.

Malthusian wrote: »

In case it clarifies the trust issue: the aunt could have given the £10,000 to the OP absolutely, on the understanding that she'd like it to go to the daughter at 24, but that it was the OP's own money and he had discretion to give it to the daughter at 24, spend it on himself or chuck it down a well, like any other £10,000 of his own money.

she gave it to the OP absolutely, and the OP subsequently moved £10,000 of his own money into a bare trust account, and it has been the daughter's from that point. Either way the money is the daughter's and she is absolutely entitled to access it at 18.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The argument to be made by the father is that he dumped it in the daughters account for safekeeping but it isn't the daughter's funds, it's only being held in that account as a loan from him and he will formally give it to her later as a gift from him to her when she is 24. It wasn't settled into the trust by him but merely loaned to the trust. While some will say that's a far fetched way of trying to weasel out of it, the daughter will presumably not complain too much anyway when the father explains the error/intention.

If the money was given by the aunt to the father outright and the father wanted it back, the father would need to rebut the presumption of advancement by presenting evidence that he didn!!!8217;t intend to make a gift to the daughter but instead intended to retain an interest in the property

That loan argument is a non starter from the beginning.

Locking it away until she is 24

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free