Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/may-the-donee-of-a-limited-testamentary-33499/
Timestamp: 2017-10-17 02:13:00
Document Index: 520081348

Matched Legal Cases: ['§5', '§8', '§8', '§5', '§8', '§8', '§5', '§103', '§1', '§12', '§12', '§13', '§12', '§1', '§8', '§12', '§48', '§6', '§2', '§3', '§130', '§1', '§103', '§43', '§116', '§43', '§116', '§117', '§12', '§43', '§43', '§12', '§43', '§12', '§12', '§112', '§44', '§9', '§9', '§9', '§43', '§43', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§8', '§2', '§2', '§24', '§43', '§12', '§214', '§8', '§8', '§364', '§9', '§12', '§8', '§9', '§405', '§1', '§10', '§374', '§9', '§39', '§12', '§8', '§8', '§124', '§47', '§9', '§38', '§898', '§898', '§38', '§38', '§9', '§103', '§1', '§66', '§9', '§44', '§112', '§12', '§44', '§112', '§5', '§12', '§5', '§12', '§8', '§402', '§120', '§5', '§45', '§45', '§45', '§45', '§123', '§123', '§12', '§8', '§409', '§9', '§409', '§46', '§9', '§9', '§124', '§408', '§9', '§124', '§408', '§404', '§408', '§9', '§47', '§47', '§9', '§12', '§24', '§48', '§48', '§48', '§12', '§48', '§12', '§7', '§7', '§5', '§94', '§4', '§4', '§94', '§24', '§1']

May the donee of a limited testamentary power of appointment irrevocably and immediately exercise it inter vivos by contract? | Charles E. Rounds, Jr. - JDSupra
The Delaware Chancery Court [In re Estate of Tigani, C.A No. 7339-ML (Del. Ch. Ct. Feb. 12, 2016)] has confirmed that the donee of a limited testamentary power of appointment may not irrevocably, immediately, and effectively exercise it inter vivos by contract. Tigani was not about whether a contract-to-exercise might ultimately be enforceable but whether actual execution of the “contract” was a present exercise of the power such that the takers in default of exercise, in this case the designated trust remaindermen, lost their status as trust beneficiaries to the extent they were not also appointees. Here are the facts: Widow had three children (D1, D2, D3). She was trustee of her late husband’s trust, its current beneficiary, and donee of a limited testamentary power of appointment. The three were takers in default of exercise and permissible appointees. She and (D3) had a falling out. D3 sued widow for breach of trust. Widow “contracted” with D1 and D2 to exercise the power in their favor. If the power had been effectively and immediately exercised, D3 would no longer have been a taker in default. Being no longer a trust beneficiary as a consequence, he would lack standing to continue the equity action against widow. The Master essentially said to widow: “Nice try, but...” First, the power is not presently exercisable, it is only exercisable at the death of the donee; second, in this case enforcement of the “contract” would constitute a fraud on the power as widow though not a permissible appointee would nonetheless be benefiting from the power’s exercise, D1 and D2 having agreed as consideration for the exercise in their favor to assist widow for life with care and maintenance. Relevant sections of Loring and Rounds: A Trustee’s Handbook: §5.1 (who qualifies as a trust beneficiary); §8.1.1 (limited testamentary powers); §8.15.26 (fraud on special powers). Section 5.1 is reproduced in its entirety below.
1 Title May the donee of a limited testamentary power of appointment irrevocably and immediately exercise it inter vivos by contract? Summary The Delaware Chancery Court [In re Estate of Tigani, C.A No. 7339-ML (Del. Ch. Ct. Feb. 12, 2016)] has confirmed that the donee of a limited testamentary power of appointment may not irrevocably, immediately, and effectively exercise it inter vivos by contract. Tigani was not about whether a contract-to-exercise might ultimately be enforceable but whether actual execution of the “contract” was a present exercise of the power such that the takers in default of exercise, in this case the designated trust remaindermen, lost their status as trust beneficiaries to the extent they were not also appointees. Here are the facts: Widow had three children (D1, D2, D3). She was trustee of her late husband’s trust, its current beneficiary, and donee of a limited testamentary power of appointment. The three were takers in default of exercise and permissible appointees. She and (D3) had a falling out. D3 sued widow for breach of trust. Widow “contracted” with D1 and D2 to exercise the power in their favor. If the power had been effectively and immediately exercised, D3 would no longer have been a taker in default. Being no longer a trust beneficiary as a consequence, he would lack standing to continue the equity action against widow. The Master essentially said to widow: “Nice try, but...” First, the power is not presently exercisable, it is only exercisable at the death of the donee; second, in this case enforcement of the “contract” would constitute a fraud on the power as widow though not a permissible appointee would nonetheless be benefiting from the power’s exercise, D1 and D2 having agreed as consideration for the exercise in their favor to assist widow for life with care and maintenance. Relevant sections of Loring and Rounds: A Trustee’s Handbook: §5.1 (who qualifies as a trust beneficiary); §8.1.1 (limited testamentary powers); §8.15.26 (fraud on special powers). Section 5.1 is reproduced in its entirety below. Text §5.1 Who/What May Be a Trust Beneficiary Generally; Who/What Are the Beneficiaries in a Given Situation [from Loring and Rounds: A Trustee’s Handbook, pages 291-299 of the 2016 Edition] The term beneficiary includes not only beneficiaries who received their interests under the terms of the trust but also beneficiaries who received their interests by other means, including by assignment, exercise of a power of appointment, resulting trust upon the failure of an interest, gap in a disposition, operation of an antilapse statute upon the predecease of a named beneficiary, or upon termination of the trust. 1 Human beings and corporations. A human being may be the beneficiary of a trust. An artificial legal entity, such as a corporation, may be as well. 2 1 UTC §103 cmt. (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>). 2 Bogert §1. 2 A trust may have one, 3 or more than one, 4 beneficiary. “If the terms of a trust require payment to one person of both the income for a period of time, and, thereafter, the principal, that person is the trust's sole beneficiary, unless there is a contingent gift to another or a resulting trust upon the designated person's failure to survive the stated period.”5 Generally for someone to qualify as the sole beneficiary of a trust, the underlying property must pass to that person's probate estate in the event of his or her death before final distribution. A sole trustee may be one of several beneficiaries and a cotrustee may be a sole beneficiary. 6 A settlor may establish a trust for the settlor's own benefit. 7 “A person is a beneficiary of a trust if the settlor manifests an intention to give the person a beneficial interest….”8 A trust beneficiary's interest is an equitable property interest. 9 It can be a present interest or a future interest, and, whether vested or contingent, the interest is property. 10 Thus, entities capable of owning property, i.e., with the capacity to take and hold legal title to property, 11 are eligible to be trust beneficiaries; these are entities to whom enforceable personal rights with respect to tangible and intangible things may attach. 12 Such entities would include minors, 13 the insane, 14 certain corporations, 15 unincorporated associations, 16 noncitizens, 17 persons who are unborn 18 or unascertained, 19 the United 3 2 Scott & Ascher §12.2.1. 4 2 Scott & Ascher §12.2. 5 3 Scott & Ascher §13.2.2. 6 2 Scott & Ascher §12.4; Bogert §1. See generally §8.7 of this handbook (merger). 7 2 Scott & Ascher §12.3. 8 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §48. 9 See Restatement of Property §6 cmt. a; Restatement (Second) of Trusts §2 cmt. f. See generally §3.5.1 of this handbook (nature and extent of the trustee's estate). 10 See 2 Scott on Trusts §130 (The Property Subject to the Trust); 1 Restatement of Property at 3 (introduction to ch. 1) (the equitable interest); UPC §1-201(3) (providing that a beneficiary of a trust includes one who has any present or future interest, vested or contingent, under the trust); In re Catherwood's Trust, 173 A.2d 86, 91 (1961) (“A gift of an equitable life estate in income or of an estate in remainder does constitute a grant of a vested property right of which the recipients cannot be divested by legislative action.”); Henry Hansmann and Ugo Mattei, The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 434, 469–473 (1998) (suggesting that a beneficiary's interest is property, at least to the extent of that beneficiary's interest under the trust); see, e.g., Barber v. Barber, 837 P.2d 714 (Alaska 1992) (confirming that a contingent trust beneficiary has a constitutionally protected property interest). See also UTC §103(11) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>) (“‘Property’ means anything that may be the subject of ownership, whether real or personal, legal or equitable, or any interest therein.”). 11 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43. 12 See generally W. N. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions 23–124 (1923) (suggesting that property is a collection of rights, privileges, powers and immunities with respect to a thing rather than the thing itself); see also 1 Restatement of Property at 3 (introduction to ch. 1). 13 See 2 Scott on Trusts §116; Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. a (providing that a minor may be a trust beneficiary though he or she lacks the capacity to transfer property and enter into contracts). 14 2 Scott on Trusts §116. 15 See 2 Scott on Trusts §117.1. See also 2 Scott & Ascher §12.5.1. But see Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. c (providing that if, by statute, a corporation cannot take title to land, or to land of more than a certain value or for other than certain purposes, it cannot become the beneficiary of a trust of land, or of land of more than the designated value or for other than the designated purposes). 16 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. d; 2 Scott & Ascher §12.6. 17 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. b; 2 Scott & Ascher §12.5.2 (Aliens). 18 2 Scott & Ascher §12.1.1. 3 States, 20 or a state 21 of the United States. At common law, a child in gestation, i.e., a child en ventre sa mere, who was born alive was deemed to have been alive at gestation. 22 Thus, “the common-law perpetuity period was comprised of three components: (1) a life in being (2) plus 21 years (3) plus a period of gestation when needed.”23 Although neither period of the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (USRAP) has a gestation extension, 24 the act makes no effort to interfere with whatever common law or statutory equitable property rights one born alive might possess by virtue of having been in utero at a given time. 25 In other words, someone in utero may be a provisional trust beneficiary. “As to the legal status of conceived-after-death children, that question has not yet been resolved.”26 One whose equitable interest under a trust has extinguished 27 or whose interest is an expectancy (not to be confused with a contingent equitable interest) is not a beneficiary and thus lacks the standing to maintain a suit against the trustee. 28 A beneficiary designation in the will of a living person is an example of an expectancy, assuming no contractual overlay. This is because the will does not speak until the testator's death. Until such time the will is said to be ambulatory. As noted, a settlor or trustee of a trust may also be its beneficiary, provided the same person is not the sole trustee and sole beneficiary. 29 When the same person possesses the entire legal and the entire equitable interest, there is no trust. The interests are said to be merged. Under the doctrine of merger, a topic we take up in Section 8.7 of this handbook, that person owns the subject property outright and free 19 Scott on Trusts §112.1. See Restatement (Third) of Trusts §44 cmt. c. In Louisiana, however, with the exception of the “class trust,” a beneficiary must be in being and ascertainable on the date of the creation of the trust. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9:1803. An unborn child is deemed a person in being and ascertainable, if he is born alive. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9:18.03. In Louisiana, a “class trust” is enforceable even though some members of the class are not yet in being at the time of the creation of the trust, provided at least one member of the class is then in being. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9:1891(A). Under Louisiana law, a “class trust” is an inter vivos or testamentary trust in favor of a class consisting of some or all of the settlor's children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, grandnieces, or grandnephews, or any combination thereof. 20 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. a. 21 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. a. 22 UPC §2-901 cmt. 23 UPC §2-901 cmt. 24 See UPC §2-901. See also §8.2.1.7 of this handbook (the two USRAP periods). 25 UPC §2-901 cmt. 26 UPC §2-901 cmt. 27 See, e.g., Matter of McDonough Living Trust, 2009 WL 2447481 (Minn. App. 2009) (denying standing to the personal representative of the probate estate of a deceased trust beneficiary whose interest under the trust terminated at death to petition for the removal of the trustee, the decedent’s status as a trust beneficiary having terminated at death). 28 4 Scott & Ascher §24.19. For an example of what an expectancy interest would look like in the context of an inter vivos trust, consider Carolyn’s interest in Moon v. Lesikar, 230 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App. 2007) (“We conclude that because Mr. Lesikar was the settlor of the trust with the power to revoke the trust, the sole beneficiary of the trust while alive, and co-trustee of the trust, Carolyn…[, though designated in the terms of the trust as a successor beneficiary,]…has no standing to complain of Mr. Lesikar’s…[inter vivos]…disposition of Family Trust assets, including the Airport Stock.”). Under classic principles of trust and property law, Carolyn’s equitable property interest, though ultra-contingent, would still be a property interest. The Texas court, by depriving her of standing to seek the trust’s enforcement, effectively downgraded that interest to a mere expectancy. 29 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §43 cmt. a. 4 of trust. In the noncharitable context, the equitable interests of the unborn 30 and unascertained are represented by the guardian ad litem, 31 unless a living and identified beneficiary is allowed to represent their interests under the doctrine of virtual representation. 32 Charities. In the charitable context, future unascertained recipients of charity are entitled to beneficiary status because the attorney general is charged with enforcing trusts established on their behalf. 33 Even a charitable corporation yet to be formed may be the beneficiary of a trust. 34 As the beneficiaries are indefinite, the attorney general is charged with the duty of informing the court of any breach of duty by the trustee. 35 Under the Uniform Trust Code, the settlor and any person with a special interest in the charitable trust also may maintain an enforcement proceeding. 36 For purposes of the Uniform Probate Code, however, the beneficiary of a charitable trust is limited to anyone who has standing to seek its enforcement in the courts. 37 Tombs and gravesites. The dead, who are without any status whatsoever under the common law, are entitled to beneficiary status, provided the legislature authorizes trusts for the perpetual care of gravesites and legal mechanisms for their enforcement. 38 Otherwise, a person who has already died before a trust is established cannot be a beneficiary. 39 In the absence of statutory authority, the relatives 40 of the dead should have common law standing to 30 2 Scott & Ascher §12.1.1. 31 See Restatement (Second) of Trusts §214 cmt. a. See generally Begleiter, The Guardian Ad Litem in Estate Proceedings, 20 Willamette L. Rev. 643, 651–653 (1984). See generally §8.14 of this handbook (when a guardian ad litem or special representative is needed and when virtual representation will suffice). 32 See §§8.15.34 of this handbook (virtual representation doctrine) and 8.14 of this handbook (when a guardian ad litem or special representative is needed and when virtual representation will suffice). 33 See 4A Scott on Trusts §§364, 391. See generally §9.4.2 of this handbook (standing to enforce charitable trusts). 34 2 Scott & Ascher §12.1.2 (noting that a trust for the benefit of a yet-to-be-organized noncharitable corporation might well violate the rule against perpetuities). See generally §8.2.1 of this handbook (rule against perpetuities). 35 See §9.4.2 of this handbook (standing to enforce charitable trusts). 36 UTC §405 cmt. (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>). 37 UPC §1-201(3). 38 See, e.g., Bolton v. Stillwagon, 410 Pa. 618, 190 A.2d 105 (1963) (holding the trustees of a perpetual care trust personally liable for self-dealing with the trust property, a trust that was operating pursuant to statutory authority). See generally P. Jackson, The Law of Cadavers and of Burial and Burial Places (2d ed. 1950); G. Newhall, Settlement of Estates and Fiduciary Law in Massachusetts §10 (4th ed. 1958); 4A Scott on Trusts §374.9. See generally §9.9.5 of this handbook (honorary trusts), which discusses the extent to which the UTC and the UPC would recognize and provide for the enforcement of this type of honorary trust; 6 Scott & Ascher §39.7.5 (confirming that a trust for the perpetual maintenance of a grave or a tomb is noncharitable unless a statute provides otherwise, or unless, perhaps, the interred was a well-known public figure, such as a president or war-time general). 39 2 Scott & Ascher §12.1.3. See generally §§8.2.1 of this handbook (the rule against perpetuities) (discussing the concept of vesting) and 8.15.55 of this handbook (antilapse [the trust application]) (discussing antilapse principles applicable to trusts). 40 See, however, §8.2.1.9 of this handbook (abolition of the rule against perpetuities) (suggesting how expansive the term relatives can be). 5 enforce gravesite protection trusts during the period permitted by the rule against perpetuities. 41 Essentially, such trusts exist for the benefit of the relatives who themselves possess the common law right to visit, honor, and protect gravesites of their deceased relatives. 42 One court has suggested that a “sort of trust” attaches to a burial plot, the trust being for the benefit of the “family” of the interred.43 The Restatement (Third) of Trusts suggests that an honorary or adapted purpose trust that grants the trustee a “power to maintain a grave should be allowed for the lifetime of the decedent's spouse and children, or of other concerned individuals designated in the will…, all lives in being at the testator's death.”44 At common law, a bequest for the purpose of maintaining an individual tomb or monument did not give rise to a charitable trust, 45 and thus violated the rule against perpetuities. 46 For Prof. John Chipman Gray, however, the vice was not “that the interests of the cestui que trust are too remote, but that there is no cestui que trust at all.”47 Today, in most jurisdictions a trust for the perpetual care of someone's gravesite is by statute enforceable. 48 “Some of the statutes clearly treat such a trust as charitable for all purposes, some do not.”49 Presumably the state attorney general has some role to play in the supervision of a perpetual care trust that qualifies as charitable or quasi-charitable, along with the relatives of the interred. 50 Holders (donees) of powers of appointment; appointees; takers in default of exercise. Under the definition of property adopted by the Restatement of Property, the holder (donee) of a general inter vivos power of appointment would be a beneficiary because the holder would possess an enforceable equitable personal right relating to a tangible or intangible thing. 51 The Uniform Trust Code is in accord. 52 So also is the Restatement (Third) of Trusts. 53 In the pre-Restatement world, when personal rights and property 41 But see 2 Scott on Trusts §124.2; Lucker v. Bayside Cemetery, 114 A.D.3d 162, 979 N.Y.S.2d 8 (2013). In New York, a trust for the perpetual care of a grave is by statute deemed a charitable trust. Thus, it is generally the New York Attorney General who is vested with the standing to seek enforcement of such trusts in the courts. “We hold that the Lucker plaintiffs and their class as they define it—indeed, whatever group categorization is used—are neither sufficiently ‘sharply defined’ nor sufficiently ‘limited in number’ to be eligible for standing to sue the cemetery as beneficiaries. To the contrary, aside from the use of the vague term ‘near relatives,’ plaintiffs can offer no rational limiting principle that would distinguish children from grandchildren—or, indeed, great-grandchildren—or from nieces or nephews or cousins and their children.” Lucker v. Bayside Cemetery, 114 A.D.3d 162, 979 N.Y.S.2d 8, 14–15 (2013). 42 See generally Rounds, Protections Afforded to Massachusetts' Ancient Burial Grounds, 73 Mass. L. Rev. 176 (1988). 43 Sanford v. Vinal, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 485–486, 552 N.E.2d 579, 584 (1990). 44 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §47 cmt. d(2). See generally §§9.27 of this handbook (the purpose trust) and 9.29 of this handbook (the adapted trust). 45 See generally 6 Scott & Ascher §§38.7.10, 39.7.5; In re Mary R. Latimer Trust, 2013 WL 4463388 (Del. Ch. Aug. 2, 2013). 46 See John Chipman Gray, The Rule Against Perpetuities, Appendix H §898 (4th ed. 1942). 47 John Chipman Gray, The Rule Against Perpetuities, Appendix H §898 (4th ed. 1942). 48 6 Scott & Ascher §38.7.10. 49 6 Scott & Ascher §38.7.10. 50 See generally §9.4.2 of this handbook (standing to enforce charitable trusts). 51 W. N. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions 23-124 (1923). See generally 1 Restatement of Property at 43 (introduction to ch. 1). 52 UTC §103(2)(B) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>). 53 Restatement (Third) of Trusts, ch. 9, Introductory Note. 6 rights were considered mutually exclusive, a powerholder had only a personal right. 54 The Uniform Probate Code considers the holder (donee), appointee, or taker in default of an exercise of a power of appointment to be a “beneficiary designated in a governing instrument.”55 Beneficiary designations must be definite. Where there is no beneficiary, there is no trust. 56 In the case of private trusts (as opposed to charitable or public trusts), the beneficiary must be definite. 57 This does not mean that the beneficiary specifically must be named—a designation by description is sufficient, 58 e.g., future issue or descendants. 59 The beneficiary is sufficiently definite, however, only if it is certain at the time when the trust takes effect that the beneficiary will be identified before the expiration of the period allowed by the Rule against Perpetuities. 60 Class designations. It commonly is held that a trust for the benefit of the members of a class of persons is valid. 61 “When a trust is created for members of a class, suit to redress or enjoin a breach of trust can be maintained by any member of the class.”62 This would apply to declarations of trust as well.63 Under the common law, however, a trust created for the benefit of an indefinite class of persons will fail, and a resulting trust will be imposed, 64 e.g., a trust for all of X's friends or for all of X's relatives. 65 Note, however, that under the Uniform Trust Code, a trust may be created for a noncharitable purpose without a definite or definitely ascertainable beneficiary, or for a noncharitable but otherwise valid purpose to be selected by the trustee. 66 The trust, though, may not be enforced for more than twenty-one years. 67 The Restatement (Third) of Trusts is generally in accord. 68 Animals and inanimate objects. Trusts for the benefit of animals or of inanimate objects have been 54 See generally National Shawmut Bank v. Joy, 315 Mass. 457, 472, 53 N.E.2d 113, 123 (1944) (suggesting that power of appointment is not property). 55 UPC §1-201(3). 56 Restatement (Second) of Trusts §66. See, however, §9.9.5 of this handbook (honorary trusts). 57 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §44; Restatement (Second) of Trusts §112; 2 Scott & Ascher §12.1. 58 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §44 cmt. b; Restatement (Second) of Trusts §112 cmt. b. See generally §5.2 of this handbook (class designations such as children, issue, heirs, and, relatives). 59 2 Scott & Ascher §12.7. See generally §5.2 of this handbook (class designations such as children, issue, heirs, and relatives). 60 2 Scott & Ascher §12.7. See generally §8.2.1 of this handbook (rule against perpetuities) and UTC §402(b) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>). 61 See Restatement (Second) of Trusts §120. See generally §5.2 of this handbook (class designations such as children, issue, heirs, and relatives). 62 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §45 cmt. f. “The fact that a member of the class may ultimately take nothing does not prevent that beneficiary from maintaining suit; each of the beneficiaries of such a trust is in this position, for if none could sue the trustee might commit a breach of trust with impunity.” Restatement (Third) of Trusts §45 cmt. f. 63 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §45 cmt. g. 64 See Restatement (Third) of Trusts §45; Restatement (Second) of Trusts §123. See generally 2 Scott on Trusts §123; National Shawmut Bank v. Joy, 315 Mass. 457, 463, 53 N.E.2d 113, 118 (1944). 65 2 Scott & Ascher §12.9 (noting, however, that a limited or special nonfiduciary power of appointment in someone that may be exercised in favor of X's friends or relatives would not fail for indefiniteness). See generally §8.1 of this handbook (powers of appointment). 66 UTC §409(1) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>). See generally §9.9.5 of this handbook (honorary trusts). 67 UTC §409(1) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>). 68 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §§46 (Members of an Indefinite Class as Beneficiaries), 47 (Trusts for Noncharitable Purposes). See generally §9.29 of this handbook (the adapted trust) and §9.27 of this handbook (the purpose trust). 7 sustained, even when not charitable. 69 These trusts, however, depend upon the honor of the trustee as there is no person who as beneficiary can apply to the court for enforcement. 70 If the named trustee does not carry out the trust, the property will be held upon a resulting trust. 71 The Restatement (Third) of Trusts would grant the person caring for a pet standing to enforce an “adapted trust” for the pet's benefit72 and allow the trust to continue for the life of the pet. 73 The Uniform Trust Code is generally in accord. 74 Standing to seek trust’s enforcement. The beneficiary of a trust with even a “minute or remote” equitable interest has standing (locus standi) to seek its enforcement, to include having the trust property secured. 75 Nor is locus standi dependent upon the size of the equitable interest. 76 “It is different where…[one]…has no existing equitable interest, vested or contingent, but only a mere possibility of a future interest—an expectancy or spes successionis.”77 Just as a person who might incidentally benefit from the performance of a contract cannot enforce the contract, 78 so also “…a person who merely benefits incidentally from the performance of the trust is not a beneficiary.”79 Thus, a trust to pay someone's tuition at a specified educational institution does not make the institution a trust beneficiary. 80 Nor usually would a direction to the trustee in the terms of the trust to employ a particular individual in the administration of the trust bestow on that individual beneficiary status. 81 Likewise, that a trustee is compensated from the trust estate for his services alone would not make him a trust beneficiary. 82 Even though someone who benefits incidentally from the performance of a trust may not enjoy the status of a beneficiary, that person might still under certain circumstances have access to the trust estate as a creditor of the trustee, provided there is recourse to the trust estate; 83 or as a creditor of the beneficiary, provided 69 See generally 2 Scott on Trusts §124. See also UTC §408 (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>) (trust for care of animal); §9.9.5 of this handbook (honorary trusts). 70 See generally Restatement (Second) of Trusts §124 cmt. d. But see UTC §408(b) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>) (authorizing enforcement of a trust for care of animal by a person appointed in the terms of the trust or, if no person is so appointed, by a person appointed by the court). 71 See generally Restatement (Second) of Trusts §404. But see UTC §408(b) (available at <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Trust%20Code>) (providing that a person having an interest in the welfare of the animal may request the court to appoint a person to enforce the trust or to remove a person appointed). See, however, §9.9.5 of this handbook regarding the enforceability of trusts for pets under the UTC and the UPC. 72 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §47, cmt. f. 73 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §47, cmt. d(2). 74 See §9.9.5 of this handbook (honorary trusts). 75 Lewin ¶38-11 (England); Farkas v. Williams, 125 N.E.2d 600 (Ill. 1955) (U.S.). 76 Lewin ¶38-11 (England); Farkas v. Williams, 125 N.E.2d 600 (Ill. 1955) (U.S.). 77 Lewin ¶38-11 (England). 78 2 Scott & Ascher §12.13; 4 Scott & Ascher §24.4. 79 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §48. 80 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §48 cmt. a, illus. 3. 81 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §48 cmt. b; 2 Scott & Ascher §12.13.3 (noting, however, that there is the rare case when a direction to employ someone is for the purpose of providing a benefit to that person, in which case that person will enjoy the status of a beneficiary). 82 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §48 cmt. c. 83 See generally 2 Scott & Ascher §12.13.2 (Debts Arising During Administration); §7.3.2 of this handbook (agreements with nonbeneficiaries to limit trustee's contractual liability) and §7.3.3 of this handbook (trustee's liability as legal owner in tort to nonbeneficiaries). 8 the equitable interest is creditor accessible. 84 To summarize, any beneficiary of a trust would have standing to seek its enforcement in the courts. The Restatement (Third) of Trusts, specifically the official commentary to Section 94, is in accord: A suit to enforce a private trust ordinarily…may be maintained by any beneficiary whose rights are or may be adversely affected by the matter(s) at issue. The beneficiaries of a trust include any person who holds a beneficial interest, present or future, vested or contingent….This includes a person who is eligible to receive a discretionary distribution…or who holds a reversionary interest by operation of law, as well as one who has succeeded to a beneficial interest by assignment, inheritance, or otherwise. The holder of a power of revocation or withdrawal…is a beneficiary; so is the donee of a special or general power of appointment, as is an expressed or implied…taker in default of appointment. 85 The Restatement (Third), however, is sending mixed signals as to whether the settlor of a trust, qua settlor, would have standing to seek its enforcement. As noted above, the Section 94 commentary confirms that one “who holds a reversionary interest by operation of law” under a noncharitable (private) trust is a beneficiary of that trust. Under classic principles of property and trust law, the settlor of a noncharitable (private) trust retains by operation of law a nonpossessory vested equitable reversionary property interest. 86 If the trust eventually terminates in favor of designated equitable remaindermen, then the equitable reversionary property interest extinguishes before the settlor can ever come into possession of the legal title to the underlying property; if the trust fails in mid-course, then legal title to the underlying property becomes possessory via the imposition of a resulting trust. 87 Ergo the settlor, qua settlor, is a beneficiary of the trust that he has established and accordingly would have standing to seek the trust’s enforcement in the courts. There is elsewhere, however, seemingly conflicting official Section 94 commentary, which states: “Neither the settlor of a private trust nor the personal representative or successors in interest of the settlor can, as such, maintain a suit against the trustee to enjoin or redress a breach of trust or otherwise to enforce the trust, absent contrary legislation.”88 Perhaps this apparent conflict can be reconciled if, for the holder of an equitable reversionary property interest to qualify as a trust beneficiary, his interest in the underlying property has to have already ripened into a possessory right. For a general discussion of whether the settlor of a trust, qua settlor, should have standing to seek the trust’s enforcement in the courts, see Section 4.1.2 of this handbook. Assignees of the equitable interest. Some equitable interests are not assignable, e.g., a permissible beneficiary's contingent interest under a discretionary trust, but some are. A trustee on actual or constructive notice 89 of the valid assignment of an equitable interest under his trust, e.g., the assignment by a beneficiary of his or her fully vested and assignable equitable remainder interest, owes “the same 84 See generally A.W. Gans, Intervention in litigation by one claiming interest in fruits thereof as trust beneficiary, 2 A.L.R.2d 227; §5.3.3.3 of this handbook (discretionary provisions and other restraints upon voluntary and involuntary transfers of the equitable interest including the spendthrift clause). 85 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §94 cmt. b (emphasis added). 86 See generally §4.1.1.1 of this handbook (the equitable reversionary interest). 87 See generally §4.1.1.1 of this handbook (the resulting trust). 88 Restatement (Third) of Trusts §94 cmt. d(2). 89 Lewin ¶26-47. 9 duties towards the assignee or disponee as he formerly owed to the beneficiary.”90 For all intents and purposes, the assignee or disponee is a beneficiary. 91 90 Lewin ¶26-46. 91 See generally 4 Scott & Ascher §24.4.3 (suggesting that “the transferee of a beneficiary's interest becomes, as a result of the transfer, a beneficiary and can maintain a suit against the trustee to enforce the trust or to enjoin or obtain redress for a breach of trust”); UPC §1-201(3) (deeming one who owns by assignment an equitable interest under a trust a beneficiary); A.W. Gans, Intervention in litigation by one claiming interest in fruits thereof as trust beneficiary, 2 A.L.R.2d 227.