Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • malcolmalisle
    • By malcolmalisle 12th May 18, 6:32 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 0Thanks
    malcolmalisle
    Locking it away until she is 24
    • #1
    • 12th May 18, 6:32 PM
    Locking it away until she is 24 12th May 18 at 6:32 PM
    My Sister (living) gave me 10,000 each for my two daughters with instructions that they cannot touch it until they are 24 year of age.
    As the money is not mine I put it into savings accounts previously setup for my children which are looked after by my wife.
    My eldest daughter will soon be turning 18 and will be legally entitled to have access to the account so I would like to move the 10,000 somewhere to uphold my living sisters wishes but find I cannot setup accounts or fixed term investments in my daughters name.
    What can I do please?
    Regards

    Malcolm
Page 1
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 6:43 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    • #2
    • 12th May 18, 6:43 PM
    • #2
    • 12th May 18, 6:43 PM
    You can't do anything. The money is your daughter's and you have no rights to touch it whatsoever, and any attempt to do so would be fraud.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 12th May 18, 6:57 PM
    • 8,091 Posts
    • 14,746 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    • #3
    • 12th May 18, 6:57 PM
    • #3
    • 12th May 18, 6:57 PM
    The two obvious choices are:

    1) Convey to your daughter the strict instructions from hey living aunt that she is not to touch the last 10,000 of the money which is sitting in her account until she is aged 24. Assuming you or your wife has spent the last 18 years bringing up your daughter to be respectful, there is no problem.

    2) Have your wife move the 10,000 from your daughter's account to an account controlled by you or your wife, to which your daughter does not have access. The perfectly reasonable grounds for doing that, are that the money was only in your daughter's account in the first place due to an administrative error where you and wife had not understood the instructions correctly and had put the gifted money somewhere where your daughter would automatically be able to spend it at 18, rather than holding it in line with the actual wishes of your sister. To correct the error, you are removing it and will complete the gift process at age 24.

    If the age of access had been 20-23 you could probably have found a "no access" deposit account and put it there in the name of your daughter so she could have it to spend then. There may not be any such accounts with exactly six or seven year maturities because up to five years is what you generally find in the savings market.

    An alternative approach is to set up a proper trust arrangement but will incur costs which are probably not welcome when the sum involved is only 10k.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 7:00 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    • #4
    • 12th May 18, 7:00 PM
    • #4
    • 12th May 18, 7:00 PM
    2) Have your wife move the 10,000 from your daughter's account to an account controlled by you or your wife, to which your daughter does not have access.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    The daughter is the beneficial owner of the account. Doing this would be theft.

    The perfectly reasonable grounds for doing that, are that the money was only in your daughter's account in the first place due to an administrative error where you and wife had not understood the instructions correctly and had put the gifted money somewhere where your daughter would automatically be able to spend it at 18. To correct the error, you are removing it and will complete the gift process at age 24.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Nope, not reaonable at all. The money was given to the daughter and it became hers. If the aunt had wished to set up such an arrangement she should have created a discretionary trust.

    If the age of access had been 20-23 you could probably have found a "no access" deposit account and put it there in the name of your daughter so she could have it to spend then. There may not be any such accounts with exactly six or seven year maturities because up to five years is what you generally find in the savings market.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Also dodgy, as the daughter has an absolute right to the money and acting in this way could comfortably be challenged.

    An alternative approach is to set up a proper trust arrangement but will incur costs which are probably not welcome when the sum involved is only 10k.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    No, they can't do that because the money is already the daughter's property. Only the daughter can create a discretionary trust for this money. Doing so would, however, be loopy.

    By the way bowlhead99, which type of hat did you eat in the end?
    Last edited by ValiantSon; 12-05-2018 at 7:03 PM.
    • xylophone
    • By xylophone 12th May 18, 7:36 PM
    • 25,783 Posts
    • 15,234 Thanks
    xylophone
    • #5
    • 12th May 18, 7:36 PM
    • #5
    • 12th May 18, 7:36 PM
    Have your wife move the 10,000 from your daughter's account to an account controlled by you or your wife, to which your daughter does not have access.
    This is simply not correct procedure.

    The money appears to have been an absolute gift to the daughter - the aunt's wish would not seem to make the arrangement anything other than a bare trust.

    The gift was not made on "If she attains the age of 24" - she has a vested interest and therefore as this is a bare trust, the daughter has an absolute right to access and control at the age of 18.

    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/trusts-settlements-and-estates-manual/tsem1563
    • kidmugsy
    • By kidmugsy 12th May 18, 9:04 PM
    • 11,095 Posts
    • 7,654 Thanks
    kidmugsy
    • #6
    • 12th May 18, 9:04 PM
    • #6
    • 12th May 18, 9:04 PM
    There appear to have been two instructions from the aunt. (i) This is for the children, but (ii) they are not to have it until they are 24.

    I can see why the OP would like to honour both. Indeed if he is to ignore one why should he not ignore the other?

    Perhaps he should return to his sister for further instructions. Maybe she will instruct him to invest it in an Investment Trust share plan under his own name but with the girls nominated as beneficiaries. I gather that the Baillie Gifford scheme supports such arrangements.
    Last edited by kidmugsy; 12-05-2018 at 9:08 PM.
    Free the dunston one next time too.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 9:15 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    • #7
    • 12th May 18, 9:15 PM
    • #7
    • 12th May 18, 9:15 PM
    There appear to have been two instructions from the aunt. (i) This is for the children, but (ii) they are not to have it until they are 24.

    I can see why the OP would like to honour both. Indeed if he is to ignore one why should he not ignore the other?

    Perhaps he should return to his sister for further instructions. Maybe she will instruct him to invest it in an Investment Trust share plan under his own name but with the girls nominated as beneficiaries. I gather that the Baillie Gifford scheme supports such arrangements.
    Originally posted by kidmugsy
    You are missing the point. The money is already in accounts of which the children are beneficial owners. The money is there's and that is the end of the matter. If the OP had held the money in accounts in his own name until they were 24 that would be a different matter, but he didn't. He cannot change his mind now about the course of action. It is irrelevant what the sister now wants him to do; she gave the money away and therefore surrendered control over it. The money belongs to his children and he has no right to move it to another account where they cannot access it. This isn't about morality, it is about legality.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 12th May 18, 9:24 PM
    • 8,091 Posts
    • 14,746 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    • #8
    • 12th May 18, 9:24 PM
    • #8
    • 12th May 18, 9:24 PM
    The daughter is the beneficial owner of the account. Doing this would be theft.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    The money is only in the account due to administrative error. The wife controls the account and from a practical perspective could instruct the money to be moved to correct the position.

    If there is doubt that the daughter as beneficiary of the account contents would consent to the position being corrected; the wife can always consult with the daughter to ensure the daughter doesn't object to the money that her auntie doesn't want her to access being out of reach of her access until the age at which she was supposed to get access. If the daughter objects she can keep the money and use it to go and live her life somewhere else on her own. It might be a useful life lesson.

    Nope, not reaonable at all. The money was given to the daughter and it became hers. If the aunt had wished to set up such an arrangement she should have created a discretionary trust.
    Well, the aunt was clear that the money could not be touched by the daughter until 24 so it could not have possibly been intended to have been put into an arrangement where she would have absolute entitlement to the money at 18.

    It's a mistake by the father, who should have said, "ok, thanks for the gift which you'd like me to pass on to my daughter's in the future, I'll give it on to my daughters at the appropriate age", or "ok, let's fill out some paperwork for a discretionary trust so that the trust can pay tax instead of me".

    Also dodgy, as the daughter has an absolute right to the money and acting in this way could comfortably be challenged.
    Not 'comfortably' challenged; quite uncomfortably and expensively challenged, for someone aged 18, who only has an absolute right to the money because it was accidentally placed into her account, by the wife -who could fix the mistake by taking it out again.

    No, they can't do that because the money is already the daughter's property.
    Only by accident though. None of us were there to hear what the aunt said to the father when giving him 20k to give to his daughters in due course, to see whether there was an implication that the 10k was immediately and indefeasibly vested in the daughter at that point.

    From what the OP said, the auntie didn't want the money to become the absolute property of the daughter at the time it was given to the father, because there was a key requirement that there could be no access before a certain age (well over the age of majority).

    By the way bowlhead99, which type of hat did you eat in the end?
    You may be referring to the thread in which its OP had told us the Skipton BS had said that members would receive their 2017/8 LISA bonuses by 5 May and enquired whether other customers had received it yet (18 Apr). I said if they had (given the deadline for Skipton to report to HMRC was 19 Apr and the commitment to credit customers' accounts was not for more than two weeks), I would eat my proverbial hat if they had.

    In the end, no Skipton customers reported receiving their bonus until 25 April so no hat consumption was required on my behalf.

    This is simply not correct procedure.

    The money appears to have been an absolute gift to the daughter - the aunt's wish would not seem to make the arrangement anything other than a bare trust.
    Originally posted by xylophone
    Certainly, the aunt gave it away and it wasn't *her* money after that point.

    The gift was not made on "If she attains the age of 24" - she has a vested interest and therefore as this is a bare trust, the daughter has an absolute right to access and control at the age of 18.
    The 20,000 was given to the father "for" the daughters. With an instruction or request that it should be given to the daughters after a particular date. Certainly one interpretation would be that the money belongs to the father until the father gives it to each of the daughters many years later like his sister requested.

    The fact that the father (or wife) dumped the money into the daughters' accounts immediately is something I would play off as a clear error.

    Yes, I'm aware that we both know what a bare trust is. My comments were to help the OP find a way out of the predicament in which he found himself, due to what I'd generously describe as 'mistakes of the past'.

    Or you can play hardball and say it's the daughters money right now because it accidentally got paid into one of her accounts, despite the clear intention of the settlor to the contrary.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 12-05-2018 at 9:39 PM.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 12th May 18, 9:38 PM
    • 8,091 Posts
    • 14,746 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    • #9
    • 12th May 18, 9:38 PM
    • #9
    • 12th May 18, 9:38 PM
    If the OP had held the money in accounts in his own name until they were 24 that would be a different matter, but he didn't. He cannot change his mind now about the course of action. It is irrelevant what the sister now wants him to do; she gave the money away and therefore surrendered control over it. The money belongs to his children and he has no right to move it to another account where they cannot access it. This isn't about morality, it is about legality.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    The account is legally controlled by someone other than the daughter and has received some 10,000 of cash that it shouldn't have received. The legal custodian of the account can return the funds and reverse the error. Without prejudice, the person who deposited it there (the father or wife) might say to please keep the interest that was generated in the meantime.

    You are certainly correct that the aunt/sister gave the money away and doesn't have access, control or rights over the money. She surrendered that control to the father, suggesting that he gift it to daughter at an appropriate age. He accidentally gave it his wife who put it in the 'wrong' account - the daughter's account. That problem could be reversed by the wife now putting it in the correct account (and the father making sure appropriate taxes were paid on interest earned in the past if that has been overlooked due to the error)

    If the daughter thinks that's wrong, the daughter could go to court and challenge it, which she won't. Some parties might think that as the reason she won't go to court is because of her lack of willingness, financial resources or knowledge of the law, she had been immorally screwed over. However, as you point out, it "isn't about morality" so that's fine, right?

    And if it *is* about morality, the gift made by the sister on condition the daughter doesn't get access until age 24, should not be considered to have absolute entitlement for the child at 18 or any younger, because absolute entitlement allows access prior to age 24.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 12-05-2018 at 9:51 PM.
    • xylophone
    • By xylophone 12th May 18, 9:56 PM
    • 25,783 Posts
    • 15,234 Thanks
    xylophone
    There may not be any such accounts with exactly six or seven year maturities
    https://www.shawbrook.co.uk/personal/savings/fixed-term-accounts/7-year-fixed-rate/

    https://uk.investing.com/economic-calendar/rpi-267

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices

    Why not have a discussion with the young woman concerning using the money for a LISA/ISA for her future?
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 10:05 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    The money is only in the account due to administrative error. The wife controls the account and from a practical perspective could instruct the money to be moved to correct the position.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    No, you are wrong about this. The daughter is the beneficial owner. There is no way that you can prove the "administrative error". The sister's verbal instructions are irrelevant as the OP chose to pay the money into a savings account in his daughter's name. The wife controls the account as a trustee. Trustees are required to act in the best interests of the beneficial owner. Stealing Putting the money in an account in somebody else's name is not acting in their best interests.

    You are wrong.

    If there is doubt that the daughter as beneficiary of the account contents would consent to the position being corrected; the wife can always consult with the daughter to ensure the daughter doesn't object to the money that her auntie doesn't want her to access being out of reach of her access until the age at which she was supposed to get access. If the daughter objects she can keep the money and use it to go and live her life somewhere else on her own. It might be a useful life lesson.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    You are changing your argument. I said nothing about whether or not they could ask the daughter not to touch the money. What they cannot do is take the money away from the daughter. She has absolute right to that money. If she consents to placing it in a fixed rate savings account for five years, and then a further one, then that is her choice, but the parents cannot do this. It is up to the daughter to decide.

    I'm glad that you aren't my parent if you would throw me out of home because I didn't want to hand over 10,000 of my money to your tender care!

    Well, the aunt was clear that the money could not be touched by the daughter until 24 so it could not have possibly been intended to have been put into an arrangement where she would have absolute entitlement to the money at 18.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Wrong again. The aunt had every opportunity to set up a trust that would have allowed her to restrict access until the OP's daughter attained 24 years of age. She didn't take this action, and instead gave the money to her brother, who in turn gave it to his daughter. That's the end of it: the money has been gifted and the aunt no longer has any say in the matter.

    It's a mistake by the father, who should have said, "ok, thanks for the gift which you'd like me to pass on to my daughter's in the future, I'll give it on to my daughters at the appropriate age", or "ok, let's fill out some paperwork for a discretionary trust so that the trust can pay tax instead of me".
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    It may be a mistake by the father (although really the mistake lies with the aunt by not taking more care), but that is now irrelevant.

    Not 'comfortably' challenged; quite uncomfortably and expensively challenged, for someone aged 18, who only has an absolute right to the money because it was accidentally placed into her account, by the wife -who could fix the mistake by taking it out again.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Clearly I was using the word "comfortably" to mean that it would be resolved in the daughter's favour. And no, the wife couldn't take the money out of the account and put it into her own as that would be theft. Do you have other people's money "resting" in your account?

    Only by accident though. None of us were there to hear what the aunt said to the father when giving him 20k to give to his daughters in due course, to see whether there was an implication that the 10k was immediately and indefeasibly vested in the daughter at that point.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    All completely irrelevant. The situation is that the money does belong to the daughters. If I, being of sound mind, give someone some money and tell them it is to be used in a certain way, I have no legal rights over that money any longer and they can use it however they wish. I cannot, at a later date, say that they must return the money to me because they didn't use it the way I wanted them to. It was a gift and in such you lose all existing rights over the money.

    From what the OP said, the auntie didn't want the money to become the absolute property of the daughter at the time it was given to the father, because there was a key requirement that there could be no access before a certain age (well over the age of majority).
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    It doesn't matter how many times you say it, this is still irrelevant.

    You may be referring to the thread in which its OP had told us the Skipton BS had said that members would receive their 2017/8 LISA bonuses by 5 May and enquired whether other customers had received it yet (18 Apr).
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Yes, I was.

    I said if they had (given the deadline for Skipton to report to HMRC was 19 Apr and the commitment to credit customers' accounts was not for more than two weeks), I would eat my proverbial hat if they had.

    In the end, no Skipton customers reported receiving their bonus until 25 April so no hat consumption was required on my behalf.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    You really are a sore loser aren't you!

    On 18th April, aj23 asked if anyone had received their bonus yet: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74209249#1

    On the same day you replied that you would eat your hat if anyone had received the bonus: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74209249#3

    The clear implication of your post was that nobody could expect to receive the bonus anytime soon, and certainly not before May. You are now trying to weasel out of it.

    I know you will write another inordinately long post to argue against this, so don't bother. Have it your way.

    Certainly, the aunt gave it away and it wasn't *her* money after that point.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Alleluia, you have seen the light!

    The gift was not made on "If she attains the age of 24" - she has a vested interest and therefore as this is a bare trust, the daughter has an absolute right to access and control at the age of 18.[/quote]
    The 20,000 was given to the father "for" the daughters. With an instruction or request that it should be given to the daughters after a particular date. Certainly one interpretation would be that the money belongs to the father until the father gives it to each of the daughters many years later like his sister requested.[/QUOTE]

    I've bolded the salient points for you. The money does not belong to the aunt and she surrendered all rights over it the day she gave it away. The father then gave it to his children and, likewise, he surrendered all rights over it too. The request is just that: a request. It is not legally binding and the daughters are the owners of the money.

    The fact that the father (or wife) dumped the money into the daughters' accounts immediately is something I would play off as a clear error.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    You would lose the case in court. The money is the property of the daughters. That really is the end of it.

    Yes, I'm aware that we both know what a bare trust is. My comments were to help the OP find a way out of the predicament in which he found himself, due to what I'd generously describe as 'mistakes of the past'.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Your suggestions encouraged the OP and his wife to engage in a conspiracy to defraud. You meant well, I'm sure, but you were grossly misguided.

    Or you can play hardball and say it's the daughters money right now because it accidentally got paid into one of her accounts, despite the clear intention of the settlor to the contrary.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    That would be the legal position.
    Last edited by ValiantSon; 12-05-2018 at 10:44 PM. Reason: Typo
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 10:19 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    The account is legally controlled by someone other than the daughter and has received some 10,000 of cash that it shouldn't have received.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    The account is held in trust. You claim to know what a bare trust is, but you don't seem to understand the legal responsibilities of a trustee.

    You claim that the money shouldn't be there, but there is no evidence to prove this. The money was given to the daughters by the father. That makes it their property. If the aunt wanted otherwise then she had the option of creating a discretionary trust. She didn't do so.

    The legal custodian of the account can return the funds and reverse the error. Without prejudice, the person who deposited it there (the father or wife) might say to please keep the interest that was generated in the meantime.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    No they can't. There has not been an error where an individual or company mistakenly paid the money into the wrong account. The father paid the money, knowingly (as he admits in his post) into the account of his daughter. Transferring that money anywhere other than another account in the name of the daughter would be theft.

    You are certainly correct that the aunt/sister gave the money away and doesn't have access, control or rights over the money. She surrendered that control to the father, suggesting that he gift it to daughter at an appropriate age. He accidentally gave it his wife who put it in the 'wrong' account - the daughter's account.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    What utter nonsense. She did not "accidentally" deposit it in in the daughter's account! Here is what the OP said:

    My Sister (living) gave me 10,000 each for my two daughters with instructions that they cannot touch it until they are 24 year of age.
    As the money is not mine I put it into savings accounts previously setup for my children which are looked after by my wife.
    Originally posted by malcolmalisle
    This action was taken in full knowledge of what they were doing; the money was the children's and so it was deposited in accounts in the children's names. I suggest you practise your sophistry elsewhere.

    That problem could be reversed by the wife now putting it in the correct account (and the father making sure appropriate taxes were paid on interest earned in the past if that has been overlooked due to the error)
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    No it couldn't! It is the children's money and the parents have no rights over it. The mother is a trustee and must exercise her duties as trustee accordingly.

    If the daughter thinks that's wrong, the daughter could go to court and challenge it, which she won't.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    You assume that she won't. Even if she were not to, it would not make the actions you propose to be correct. I'm starting to worry about your attitude to the law.

    Some parties might think that as the reason she won't go to court is because of her lack of willingness, financial resources or knowledge of the law, she had been immorally screwed over. However, as you point out, it "isn't about morality" so that's fine, right?
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    It is illegal, and that is my point (one you seem to be having a hard time understanding).

    And if it *is* about morality, the gift made by the sister on condition the daughter doesn't get access until age 24, should not be considered to have absolute entitlement for the child at 18 or any younger, because absolute entitlement allows access prior to age 24.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    You are trying to argue against something that I never wrote. What you propose is illegal, so cut it with what you believe is such a clever piece of argument.

    At no point have I said that the parents shouldn't have a discussion with their daughter about this money and her aunt's wishes, but they may not make the decision for her.
    Last edited by ValiantSon; 12-05-2018 at 10:45 PM. Reason: Typo & Formatting
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 12th May 18, 10:28 PM
    • 2,675 Posts
    • 2,608 Thanks
    steampowered
    The above poster's analysis assumes that the money was given to the daughters.

    I'm not sure that is the case. It sounds like the money was given to the father, on the understanding that it would be given to the daughters when they hit 24. That's not necessarily a trust.

    If the account is in your or your wife's name Op, I would simply keep it there.

    If the account is in your daughter's names, they will be able to access it when they hit 18. In which case I would have a conversation with them about your sister's wishes.
    • xylophone
    • By xylophone 12th May 18, 10:32 PM
    • 25,783 Posts
    • 15,234 Thanks
    xylophone
    The father only ever held the money in bare trust as it indefeasibly vested in the children the minute the aunt gave it to them on a "when" rather than "if" basis.

    The aunt should either have held on to the cash and given it at a time of her choosing or set up a discretionary trust with herself and the parents as Trustees.

    As things now stand, the money is in accounts held in bare trust for the children and the legal position is quite clear.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 10:35 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    The above poster's analysis assumes that the money was given to the daughters.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    No, it is based on the information provided by the OP that it was given to him (for his daughters) and he then gave it to his daughters:

    As the money is not mine I put it into savings accounts previously setup for my children which are looked after by my wife.
    Originally posted by malcolmalisle
    I'm not sure that is the case. It sounds like the money was given to the father, on the understanding that it would be given to the daughters when they hit 24. That's not necessarily a trust.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    As xylophone says, there was a bare trust created when the money was given to the father.

    A trust also exists in the children's savings accounts.

    If the account is in your or your wife's name Op, I would simply keep it there.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    It isn't. The money is in accounts that are in the children's names, with the mother acting as a trustee.

    If the account is in your daughter's names, they will be able to access it when they hit 18. In which case I would have a conversation with them about your sister's wishes.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    This is the situation.
    Last edited by ValiantSon; 12-05-2018 at 10:48 PM. Reason: Typo
    • xylophone
    • By xylophone 12th May 18, 10:35 PM
    • 25,783 Posts
    • 15,234 Thanks
    xylophone
    money was given to the father
    No, the aunt gave the money to her nieces - the father was only ever a trustee (which he acknowledges in his first post).
    • Alexland
    • By Alexland 12th May 18, 10:43 PM
    • 2,743 Posts
    • 2,084 Thanks
    Alexland
    This thread just caused me to eat all my popcorn.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 12th May 18, 10:49 PM
    • 2,234 Posts
    • 2,123 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    This thread just caused me to eat all my popcorn.
    Originally posted by Alexland
    Glad to have provided entertainment for you on a dull Saturday evening, Alex!
    Last edited by ValiantSon; 12-05-2018 at 11:21 PM. Reason: Typo
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 13th May 18, 1:25 AM
    • 8,091 Posts
    • 14,746 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    No, you are wrong about this. The daughter is the beneficial owner. There is no way that you can prove the "administrative error".
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    I don't need to prove anything as I wasn't there and neither were you. I merely made some comments that depart from the standard advice given to people on the forum.
    The sister's verbal instructions are irrelevant as the OP chose to pay the money into a savings account in his daughter's name.
    So, it seems OP made some sort of a mistake, which is between him and his family and not you or me.
    The wife controls the account as a trustee. Trustees are required to act in the best interests of the beneficial owner. Stealing Putting the money in an account in somebody else's name is not acting in their best interests.
    If the dad accidentally paid his money into the wrong account due to a misunderstanding, as is my contention (in assisting the dad with a way out of his predicament), then it is in the best interests of the beneficiary of the account to just give it back and prevent further hassle. If I had money in my account that wasn't supposed to be there, I'd give it back to mitigate ongoing problems, rather than obstinately keep it. It's in my best interests in terms of hassle down the road.

    You are changing your argument. I said nothing about whether or not they could ask the daughter not to touch the money. What they cannot do is take the money away from the daughter. She has absolute right to that money.
    Practically, they can do what they want. If they put a toy in her toybox marked "daughters toys", they can still take it out.

    They have put it in the account that belongs to the daughter, due to a mistake. The mother and father didn't intend it to be given to the daughter and for it to be vested in her with absolute entitlement from a young age. At least, according to the father, who is seeking to deny access to the daughter due to what the original intention was.

    I'm glad that you aren't my parent if you would throw me out of home because I didn't want to hand over 10,000 of my money to your tender care!
    Well, I'm glad that you aren't my daughter if you would seeek to spend, and deny the return of, some money provided by a relative that you know very well wasn't actually intended by anyone to be accessible by or controllable by you before you turned 24

    Wrong again. The aunt had every opportunity to set up a trust that would have allowed her to restrict access until the OP's daughter attained 24 years of age. She didn't take this action, and instead gtave the money to her brother
    As I said, the aunt doesn't control it.

    It may be a mistake by the father (although really the mistake lies with the aunt by not taking more care), but that is now irrelevant.
    From a practical perspective, the father making a mistake is not 'irrelevant' to what can happen in the future, given the father or wife controls the account and can rectify the said mistake
    And no, the wife couldn't take the money out of the account and put it into her own as that would be theft. Do you have other people's money "resting" in your account?
    Actually I do, but that is neither here nor there.

    If I, being of sound mind, give someone some money and tell them it is to be used in a certain way, I have no legal rights over that money any longer and they can use it howver they wish. I cannot, at a later date, say that they must return the money to me because they didn't use it the way I wanted them to. It was a gift and in such you lose all existing rights over the money.
    They might not at present use it however they wish because they may not even have signatory authority over the account until they are 18. Seems quite easy to reverse the error.

    If you of legally "sound mind" but not thinking clearly, put some cash in your daughter's bank account and then later realise that you didn't intend to do that until she was much older, then in order to score points for being right on the internet you might like to think that in some legal way it is gone forever and she will keep it without you having any remedy for the situation in which you find yourself. But in the real world, it isn't, especially as she doesn't even have legal capacity to control the money anyway. Just let her sue you if she has read on MSE that you've committed a heinous fraud upon her. She won't, because she would realise she is being silly.

    It doesn't matter how many times you say it, this is still irrelevant.
    You seem to have taken my posts from 9.24 and 9.38 and broken them up into twenty separate extracts in order to attack each one with basically the same argument. As you already provided your comments on the matter at 7pm and have not added much in the way of new reasoning since then, I don't see that twenty separate replies from you really enhances the debate, especially if you are going to say that the facts don't change no "matter how many times you say something".

    You really are a sore loser aren't you!

    On 18th April, aj23 asked if anyone had received their bonus yet: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74209249#1

    On the same day you replied that you would eat your hat if anyone had received the bonus: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74209249#3

    The clear implication of your post was that nobody could expect to receive the bonus anytime soon, and certainly not before May. You are now trying to weasel out of it.

    I know you will write another inordinately long post to argue against this, so don't bother. Have it your way.
    I'm loath to comment as this will not be of interest to the OP of this thread here, but from those quotes it seems we are agreed that in response to a post on 18 April about whether anyone had received their LISA bonus from Skipton by then, I certainly did indeed agree to eat my proverbial hat if they had. In the end, nobody reported receiving their Skipton LISA bonus until 25 April, one full week later, so no hat-eating was required.

    I realise you can't bear other people being right and you not be, as we've seen on other threads; so when I point out that I had been entirely correct on that point, it's not surprising that you tried to deflect and say that I am trying to weasel out of my position, and that I will write an inordinately long post to argue it, to make it seem like a post defending that position is wrong just because of length. Yet, I am not trying to weasel out of anything. I maintain the accurate position I held in relation to Skipton LISA bonuses, it was a correct position to take, and these two paragraphs aren't an 'inordinately' long way of telling you that.

    I've bolded the salient points for you. The money does not belong to the aunt and she surrendered all rights over it the day she gave it away.
    Well, please don't feel you need to bold things for me. We're all agreed the aunt gave the money away
    The father then gave it to his children and, likewise, he surrendered all rights over it too.
    He put it into their accounts by mistake, not realising at the time that he would frustrate his actual intention to not let them have access it until age 24. Now he has realised the mistake, perhaps he will conspire with his wife to fix the mistake, with no practical consequence because the teenage daughter isn't going to sue. Alternatively he may just educate the daughter not to drain the account before age 24.

    You would lose the case in court. The money is the property of the daughters. That really is the end of it.
    I would not be taking the case to court. Out of court settlements are way more practical. Presuming the father has the balls to go through with it, the daughter would cave - as she holds few cards, despite being beneficiary to the account that currently holds the money.

    Your suggestions encouraged the OP and his wife to engage in a conspiracy to defraud. You meant well, I'm sure, but you were grossly misguided.
    I encouraged them to fix their earlier error. Actually the first thing I encouraged them to do - in chronological order, in my first post - was my option (1), instruct the daughter not to spend the money until age 24. If that is unlikely to work, look at other options, option (2) or beyond.

    The account is held in trust. You claim to know what a bare trust is, but you don't seem to understand the legal responsibilities of a trustee.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    I do understand them, but thanks

    You claim that the money shouldn't be there, but there is no evidence to prove this. The money was given to the daughters by the father. That makes it their property. If the aunt wanted otherwise then she had the option of creating a discretionary trust. She didn't do so.
    This seems quite repetitious. In your 7pm post you mentioned "If the aunt had wished to set up such an arrangement she should have created a discretionary trust." Then in your 10:05 post you said "The aunt had every opportunity to set up a trust that would have allowed her to restrict access until the OP's daughter attained 24 years of age. She didn't take this action". Then, despite there being no posts from anyone else between your 10:05 post and your 10:19 posts, you are telling us again at 10:19 that the aunt had the option of creating a discretionary trust and she didn't do so. Do you just like hearing your own voice? I thought you had passed comment earlier about "it doesn't matter how many times you say it..."

    For the avoidance of doubt, yes we know that the aunt didn't create a discretionary trust.

    There has not been an error where an individual or company mistakenly paid the money into the wrong account. The father paid the money, knowingly (as he admits in his post) into the account of his daughter.
    He now realises it to be a mistake as the money isn't his because it's not residing in his account but his daughter's, and the intention was for him to only let his daughter access it at 24, which is not the case, due to him giving it to her, by mistake -a lack of understanding of banking and trust law. So, you can call that what you like but some would call it "an error where an individual paid the money into the wrong account", even if there's more to it than that

    What utter nonsense. She did not "accidentally" deposit it in in the daughter's account! Here is what the OP said:
    Well, however he worded it, he didn't mean for it to be placed into an account that his daughter had absolute entitlement to at an age earlier than 24. We can tell that by the way he has pulled together his senses and is looking for guidance on how to make sure his daughter doesn't access it before 24. While he sees it as money which will belong to his daughters, he doesn't actually want that to happen so it was a mistake to give it to them earlier than the age at which he should have given it to them.

    No it couldn't! It is the children's money and the parents have no rights over it. The mother is a trustee and must exercise her duties as trustee accordingly.
    She must act in her daughter's best interests, and could consult with the daughter on that and explain why it was an error to put the father's money in that account when the father didn't really want her to get access until later. The daughter may quite reasonably come round to the idea that it might be in the daughter's best interests to give up beneficial ownership of the 10k (the gift made by the father in error) in order to receive 10k plus interest or investment returns later and still be in the family will, receive financial and emotional support etc between age 18-24 etc etc

    I'm starting to worry about your attitude to the law.
    Oops. The last thing I would want is an anonymous stranger on the internet being concerned for my attitude to the law.

    It is illegal, and that is my point (one you seem to be having a hard time understanding).

    You are trying to argue against something that I never wrote. What you propose is illegal, so cut it with what you believe is such a clever piece of argument.
    You said it was not about morality but the law. The interpretation of law is what will be determined in a court, and may be cut n dried ; yet the court will only get a chance to do that if someone takes it to court and does not give up or settle before that point in order to keep up the family relationships and other support that goes with that.

    So really it's the morality or relationship / touchy feely stuff that rules situations like this and when you have access to funds which you got for free from a trusting family member (aunt or father) that explicitly did not intend for you to get access to them until some other later point in time -wherever the cash currently happens to be sitting - you will probably freely give the money back without feeling you have been defrauded and being minded to sue.

    At no point have I said that the parents shouldn't have a discussion with their daughter about this money and her aunt's wishes,
    So you agreed with my common sense option (1) in my original post but couldn't resist trying to assert the moral high ground on the other practical options. The law is the law, however history is written by the victors so if the father takes back the money (which the daughter might not even know exists anyway) to correct the error he made in the past, and then writes it into discretionary trust for her, or simply gifts it later, he will probably get away with it.
    but they may not make the decision for her.
    They may not take her money, and when they drive her over to see her favourite generous aunty they may not drive over 70mph on the motorway or at 31mph in a 30 zone, which is also against the law...

    If they do either of those things, they will probably get away with it quite amicably.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 13-05-2018 at 2:04 AM.
    • Tom99
    • By Tom99 13th May 18, 5:47 AM
    • 2,401 Posts
    • 1,618 Thanks
    Tom99
    bowlhead99 has suggested a solution to a family problem which, whilst maybe not 100% within the law, is likely to be accepted by all parties as the best way forward.

    If the daughter did not like it she may throw a strop for a few days but then family life will go on.

    Neither the law nor Childline will be called in and no hats will be eaten.

    I would not tie up the money for too long as circumstances may change. For example buying a 1st property may be just the sort of situation the Aunt had in mind for the 10,000.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,509Posts Today

6,967Users online

Martin's Twitter