Event Description
Trusts are relationships, not legal persons, for trusts law purposes. Still, they are often treated as if they were legal persons, both for private law purposes and other purposes, including tax and standing. Some trusts are in practice structured so as to emulate corporations, as in the appointment of a board and a CEO. Some specialized trust regimes are explicitly designed as legal persons. Faced with this reality, Lionel Smith reminded us that treating trusts as legal persons is a mistake. I take a different approach: I examine whether the law of trusts should be redesigned so as to make them legal persons. I find that on balance, a careful, informed entification of express trusts could be desirable. Entifying the trust would reduce the costs associated with trustee succession by having the trust assets vested in an entified trust rather than in any trustee. It would also provide a familiar resolution regime for cases where trustee indebtedness in the trust context outruns the assets available to defray it: entified trusts could easily be subjected to the law of bankruptcy. Finally, trust entification would prevent the absurdity, common given trusts-as-relationships, of trustees holding a chose in action against themselves on trust, with the same person being both debtor and creditor. The entified trust would be the creditor, and the trustee the debtor.
5:30pm-6:30pm - Lecture
6:30pm-7:30pm - Reception
Speaker
- Allard School of Law
- Research
- General Public
- All Students
- Faculty
- Graduate Students
- JD
- Staff
- Research Talks