Equity and trusts in life and death

Equity and Trusts in Life and Death Student Name Institution Date Question 2 Advise Lucien, Piotr, Magdalena, Viktoria and Jessica on their entitlement to Viktor’s estate is complex considering the involvement of the solicitor and the secretary signing the paperwork on Viktor’s behalf. * Car Collection Viktor informs his son Piotr verbally that he will inherit the collection of classic cars. He does this quietly without informing anyone else. In the UK, while verbal agreements can be legally binding, proving them can be problematic. Viktor does not make the statement in the hearing of the people, which makes it difficult to enforce. If Victor made the declaration in the hearing of the people present in the factory meeting, this would mean there are witnesses to attest to the claim. Trusts must be evidenced in writing since without a formal document, it is challenging to make any claim. It would be difficult for Piotr to claim the car collection as the father promised since the verbal statement was private and had no written document to support it. While Piotr asks Viktor to put the statement, something that the father appreciates, the father dies without formalizing the statement. Hence, Piotr does not have the necessary supporting evidence to argue for constructive trust in his favour. * Brooklands Court Viktor announced to his guests that he would hold the holiday apartment (Brooklands Court). However, the fact that Viktor promised to hold the property in trust does not by itself create a legally binding trust. This is because under s.53(1)(b), a declaration of a trust of interests in land must be proved in some writing and signed by the person declaring it. Brooklands Court is land and subject to s.53(1)(b). While the solicitor has prepared the necessary documentation relating to the trust of Brooklands Court, Viktor does not manage to sign them due to the jet crash. Viktor’s secretary Sven signs the paperwork on his behave, seeking to impress his boss. The signed documents by the secretary are null and void since this was not done under the authorization of Viktor. And even if Viktor authorized the signing of the paperwork, this will still not be enforceable since it is only Viktor who can sign the paperwork as the person declaring the trust. Additionally, S.53(1)(c) indicates that a disposition of an equitable interest or trust should be in writing. This nullifies the declaration that Viktor had made during the family meeting, as the land trust cannot be disposed of through a verbal declaration. Such a declaration should be accompanied by a formal written document. However, Rochefoucauld v Boustead shows that a trust of land can be enforced despite written evidence and may be used to demonstrate that s.53(1)(c) does not apply. However, since there are no unconscionable actions in the scenario, the rule of Rochefoucauld v Boustead does not apply. As a result, the land trust is unenforceable and cannot be addressed as the settlor is dead. If Viktor had signed the documents before dying, then the land trust would have been valid and enforceable. Shares[Rochefoucauld v Boustead [1897] 1 Ch 196] The transfer of the shares would require proper documentation and compliance with legal formalities. Viktor currently has 50,...