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 2
    • Zorillo
    • By Zorillo 13th May 18, 7:34 AM
    • 227 Posts
    • 116 Thanks
    Zorillo
    I'd be suggesting using it as 2.5 years LISA contributions from age 18 (or 4 years HTB if there is uncertainty as to whether she'll ever want to buy a property). I'd sit the daughter down now and explain the gift, and show her the maths as to why LISA/HTB makes sense, and if she agrees I'd explain why we'd done it this way to my sister.

    This would also have the happy consequence of probably tying it up past 24, but if not at least it'd be being used for a qualifying purchase.

    Obviously if this doesn't appeal, then explaining the intention of the gift and the (non-binding) conditions intended to attach to it to both of your daughters as soon as possible would be the way to go.

    Of course, if either daughter doesn't want to play nicely for whatever reason, then there isn't really a lot that can be done now.
    Last edited by Zorillo; 13-05-2018 at 8:11 AM.
    • jamei305
    • By jamei305 13th May 18, 7:36 AM
    • 347 Posts
    • 401 Thanks
    jamei305
    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.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon

    It would only be theft if in doing so the parent harboured a dishonest intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th May 18, 8:55 AM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 2,072 Thanks
    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.
    So, it seems OP made some sort of a mistake, which is between him and his family and not you or me.
    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.

    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.

    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

    As I said, the aunt doesn't control it.

    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
    Actually I do, but that is neither here nor there.

    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.

    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".

    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.

    Well, please don't feel you need to bold things for me. We're all agreed the aunt gave the money away 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.

    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.

    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.

    I do understand them, but thanks 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.

    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

    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.

    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

    Oops. The last thing I would want is an anonymous stranger on the internet being concerned for my attitude to the law.

    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.

    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.
    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.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Nothing you have said changes the fact that you are wrong. The legal position is clear cut. If I have repeated myself it is only because of your obstinacy in refusing to accept that you are wrong. Your hypocrisy in accusing me of this is breathtaking.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th May 18, 9:01 AM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 2,072 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    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.
    Originally posted by Tom99
    I'm glad that you are so free with the legal niceties of a bare trust. Discussing it with the daughter is fine, but it is her choice as to what happens with the money and nobody else's.

    As a trustee of a bare trust, I am pretty appalled at the comments on here advocating breaking the law.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th May 18, 9:03 AM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 2,072 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    It would only be theft if in doing so the parent harboured a dishonest intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money.
    Originally posted by jamei305
    Yes that is true, but they would have a difficult time proving their innocence.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 13th May 18, 10:50 AM
    • 20,958 Posts
    • 96,969 Thanks
    michaels
    What if the aunt had expressed her wishes in writing at the time such as
    Dearest brother, I have transferred 10k to your account which is for your daughter when she reaches 24 years of age...
    Would this not clearly indicate that what the father had done was a mistake? With a mistake is there any time limit between the mistake happening and it becoming irrevocable. I make a faster payment getting the last digit of the account wrong and I can try and recover the funds the next day, if I don't realise the mistake until 2 years later have I lost the right to try and obtain redress?
    Cool heads and compromise
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 13th May 18, 11:02 AM
    • 2,727 Posts
    • 3,478 Thanks
    unforeseen
    No, it would indicate that the father ignored the sister's wishes by putting the money in a place that the daughter could access at 18
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th May 18, 11:16 AM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 2,072 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    What if the aunt had expressed her wishes in writing at the time such as

    Would this not clearly indicate that what the father had done was a mistake? With a mistake is there any time limit between the mistake happening and it becoming irrevocable. I make a faster payment getting the last digit of the account wrong and I can try and recover the funds the next day, if I don't realise the mistake until 2 years later have I lost the right to try and obtain redress?
    Originally posted by michaels
    It would still have created a bare trust and therefore the daughter would have full entitlement at 18. The aunt could have created a discretionary trust that would have granted the money at 24, but she didn't.

    If you paid money accidentally into the wrong person's account and then tried to claim it back two years later then you may be unsuccessful, although the receiving party had no reasonable expectation of the money. It would not be a straightforward process. However, this analogy is flawed because this was not money mistakenly paid into the account of an unknown person by miskeying an account number. The money was paid into the account of a child, by a parent, and done so because they knew that the money was not theirs.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 13th May 18, 11:25 AM
    • 8,083 Posts
    • 14,733 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    It would only be theft if in doing so the parent harboured a dishonest intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money.
    Originally posted by jamei305
    Yes that is true, but they would have a difficult time proving their innocence.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Au contraire. If a crime, someone has to prove their guilt rather than they prove their innocence.

    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.

    However, due to a misunderstanding by the father, the father paid it into an account beneficially owned by the daughter which he now understands can be accessed by her at age 18.

    The father went onto the internet to post in public about the best way to deal with this error, the fact that this family money had been placed into the daughter's account early when he and his sister really intended her to have it some years later at age 24.

    You say the parent would have a 'difficult time' proving that they didn't have a "dishonest intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money". But it seems that from what the father had discussed with the sister, and what the father has posted in public in the course of his enquiries, he has no intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money, only to save it for her benefit for a few years as any loving parent might seek to do for a minor; at least, a court may not believe that beyond reasonable doubt he did have that intention to permanently deprive her of the money. I would imagine that most people reading this thread would not think he means to permanently deprive her.

    Under the Theft Act, a 'borrowing' of the money from the account to temporarily treat as his own might equate to an intention to permanently deprive - but only if, 'the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal', or where for example the father then parts with it in a way he may not be able to later return it (e.g. gambling the money or engaging in some investment that could involve loss of capital) without the permission of the owner.

    But the most likely reason a court would probably not be determining this to be theft - dishonest intention to permanently deprive the person of the assets - beyond reasonable doubt - is that it probably wouldn't be going to court on charges of theft anyway.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 13-05-2018 at 11:28 AM.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th May 18, 12:05 PM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 2,072 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    Au contraire. If a crime, someone has to prove their guilt rather than they prove their innocence.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Yes, I am well aware of that. It doesn't, however, prevent you from having to prepare a defence if you are charged.

    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.

    However, due to a misunderstanding by the father, the father paid it into an account beneficially owned by the daughter which he now understands can be accessed by her at age 18.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    That isn't a very strong defence, especially as it ignores the nature of a bare trust.

    The father went onto the internet to post in public about the best way to deal with this error, the fact that this family money had been placed into the daughter's account early when he and his sister really intended her to have it some years later at age 24.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    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.

    You say the parent would have a 'difficult time' proving that they didn't have a "dishonest intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money". But it seems that from what the father had discussed with the sister, and what the father has posted in public in the course of his enquiries, he has no intention to permanently deprive the daughter of the money, only to save it for her benefit for a few years as any loving parent might seek to do for a minor; at least, a court may not believe that beyond reasonable doubt he did have that intention to permanently deprive her of the money. I would imagine that most people reading this thread would not think he means to permanently deprive her.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Second guessing what a court may or may not believe is probably pointless, and it could be easily argued that the post on the internet (if it were even considered admissable) was an attempt to create a cover for the actions.

    Oh, and the daughter stops being a minor at the age of 18, so you cannot argue that he is doing it in her best interest after the age of 18.

    Under the Theft Act, a 'borrowing' of the money from the account to temporarily treat as his own might equate to an intention to permanently deprive - but only if, 'the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal', or where for example the father then parts with it in a way he may not be able to later return it (e.g. gambling the money or engaging in some investment that could involve loss of capital) without the permission of the owner.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Yes, and locking it away for a minimum of six years could reasonably be considered such.

    But the most likely reason a court would probably not be determining this to be theft - dishonest intention to permanently deprive the person of the assets - beyond reasonable doubt - is that it probably wouldn't be going to court on charges of theft anyway.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    Do stop quoting the Theft Act at me. I know the definition of theft.

    So ultimately your argument comes down to, if you can get away with it then it is alright! Wow!
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 13th May 18, 2:02 PM
    • 8,083 Posts
    • 14,733 Thanks
    bowlhead99

    Do stop quoting the Theft Act at me. I know the definition of theft.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Not everyone does so it was perhaps worth reminding people what you meant when you asserted that categorically it was theft:
    The daughter is the beneficial owner of the account. Doing this would be theft.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    Transferring that money anywhere other than another account in the name of the daughter would be theft.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    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.

    So ultimately your argument comes down to, if you can get away with it then it is alright! Wow!
    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.
    • ValiantSon
    • By ValiantSon 13th May 18, 2:07 PM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 2,072 Thanks
    ValiantSon
    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.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99
    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
    • By TheShape 13th May 18, 2:20 PM
    • 1,299 Posts
    • 1,113 Thanks
    TheShape
    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
    • By FB13 14th May 18, 12:06 AM
    • 124 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    FB13
    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.
    Originally posted by ValiantSon
    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.
    Last edited by FB13; 14-05-2018 at 12:15 AM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 14th May 18, 8:27 AM
    • 4,336 Posts
    • 6,833 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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.
    Originally posted by bowlhead99

    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
    • By Malthusian 14th May 18, 8:45 AM
    • 4,336 Posts
    • 6,833 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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).
    Last edited by Malthusian; 14-05-2018 at 8:50 AM.
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 14th May 18, 11:55 AM
    • 2,671 Posts
    • 2,604 Thanks
    steampowered
    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
    • By bowlhead99 14th May 18, 12:14 PM
    • 8,083 Posts
    • 14,733 Thanks
    bowlhead99

    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).
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    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.
    Last edited by bowlhead99; 14-05-2018 at 12:16 PM.
    • xylophone
    • By xylophone 14th May 18, 12:20 PM
    • 25,771 Posts
    • 15,226 Thanks
    xylophone
    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
    • By Malthusian 14th May 18, 12:20 PM
    • 4,336 Posts
    • 6,833 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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.
    Originally posted by steampowered

    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.
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

357Posts Today

4,824Users online

Martin's Twitter