Equity and trust law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Equity and trust law - Essay ExampleHowever, as Pettit3 argues, equity operates on the conscience of the owner of legal interest and so in the case of a trust the conscience of the legal owner of the estate is required to contribute out that purpose for which it was intended, or which the law obliges him or her to do. This is because English law is based on formalities which must be fulfilled in smart set for a transfer of trust to be considered as complete. These formalities are achieved in different processes, but all include some form of semiofficial government document which the donor of an estate must sign as an indication of the transfer of the estate. In English trust law, these formalities are considered as the absolute way to determine the absolute owner of an estate, without having to consider so many factors. The main issue with regard to the requirements of these formalities is that many shoes owners fleet before they have made a formal willing and this leaves room for conflicts among the people who were related to them in different ways. While at times the romance can find that there was intent by the pathological to place his or her trust to another person even if the said person is not an obvious heir to the diseased and in the interest of an express will or effectuation of transfer of interest, the law still depends a much as is possible on formalities and only considers other avenues where formalities have not been met. Even in such as the Paul v Constance 1977 1 WLR 527 case in which the judge depended on other sources of evident to decide the case in favour of the plaintiff who was claiming blank space rights against the legal wife of the diseased person, the court had to gravitate towards any available formalities or the evidence of intended will to meet these formalities. The case indicates that being the natural heir to property is not enough for the court to decide in your favour. For instance, in the above case, Mrs Constance wh o was the defendant was the natural heir to the estate of Mr Constances estate because they were still licitly married by the time Mr Constance died. Conversely, Mrs Paul was only a live-in partner to Mr Constance and her rights in Mr Constances estate were very limited or even non existence. Yet, careless(predicate) of that, the court jugged in favour Mrs Paul. This only goes to show how complicated trust law can be. How such a case goes also depends on whether the judge(s) will choose to use technicalities or not. Regardless of the nature of this case and the unexpected outcome, it is clear that the court made the decision while keeping in judging the need for formalities in completion of transfer of trust as well as equity in such cases. To look at both sides, the court had to look at the faintest of evidence for intent by Mr Constance to transfer the will, and at the same time wanted to deliver a judgement that offered equity. The bearing of the case is to deliver justice wit h the available evidence available. In the present case, it is clear that there is some evidence that the two aunts had received from Lady Meera the intent of transfer of trust. In the first case with regard to aunt Jemima, Lady Meera had left her the papers to the shares. In the second case, she had showed Aunt Beatrix the estate. These facts are important in the case and can determine the way the judge will decide to end the case. As a result, in trying to get custody of these property which the two aunts are