Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search Posts
Search in pages
Search Products
Filter by Categories
B-BBEE
Blog
Company Secretarial
Featured
General Business
General Interest
Investing in Property
Marketing
Personal Growth
Personal Wealth
Tax
Trusts and Estate Planning

The Master’s office is really going over the top now. They are suddenly invoking the findings of the Crookes case which was heard in 1956! I think somebody there is studying trust law and trying to make a name for themselves (and I think I know who it is)

The matter that had to be decided in the case was whether under those particular circumstances, the trustees and donor could change the Trust Deed without the agreement of any other party. Because of the unusual circumstances is was found that the beneficiaries had to agree as well. This was essentially because they were found to be vested beneficiaries.

Now we all know that a vested beneficiary is one who has accepted a distribution by the trust and we all know that vested beneficiaries must also agree to a change in the Trust Deed, which is why our resolution states “THERE BEING NO VESTED BENEFICIARIES”.

The Master is now throwing those out and demanding the agreement of any “beneficiaries that have accepted benefits (either tacitly or expressly)”. Talk about nit-picking.

So now our resolution states “THERE BEING NO BENEFICIARIES THAT HAVE ACCEPTED BENEFITS EITHER TACITLY OR EXPRESSLY” Wonderful! That’s one giant leap for mankind.

Need help with your Investments?

Contact us today or set up a free meeting with our CEO, Derek Springett, to discuss your options. We have been offering expert financial advice and business services since 1971. You can also visit our online store to see our list of financial services.