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.