Analysis of Trustee Responsibilities and Property Ownership Disputes: Legal and Financial Considerations

Section A

Question B

The trustees are diligently being shared that Malik's will should be considering all the provisions that he has mentioned and uses that they diligently carry out everything in accordance with his wishes and the different legal requirements. The funds are analyzed below for carrying on the things:

For the snakes, The 10000 pounds quill needed to be allocated for better care, maintenance and well-being for Malik’s pets’ snakes in an effective manner. It showcases that they should be showcasing their discretionary power for ensuring that the funds properly benign allocated for the overall maintenance of the snakes which shall not be limited to the things such as the foods, veterinary cares and the habitat improvements that they are entitled to[1]. The fiduciary duty also aligns in this matter largely speedily of maintaining a decent amount which acts in the interest level of the beneficiaries to manage them prudently. The fundamental duty of allocating the fund on a monthly basis for the snakes is effectively being needed so that snakes are properly being maintained and their investment seems to be taking place as those are the only pets that Malik usually kept with him. Therefore, the main role here is to fill the duties and obligations that are entitled to the trustees in terms of maintaining the fiduciary things. 

For maintenance of the St.Stephen’s Church and headstone for Rebbaca, the portion of the estate which should be given specially for this purpose[2]. It calls for diligently looking after proper maintenance of the roof of the church and helping to build a headstone for Malik's Late Wife Rebecca within the churchyard. It makes the trustees to effectively coordinate with the church authorities for ensuring that the funds are diligently being used and in appropriate manner preferably the rules and regulations of the agreements that have already been prepared. The trust laws ideally point to this thing where the principle and regulations outlined in the trust laws need to be followed by the trustees that are ideally given then for creation, administration and estimation of the trust after the purpose has been completed[1]. The ditty loyalty, dirty of prudence’s and duty to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries should be followed elegantly. In this scenario talking with the church arthritis and ensuring that headstone is implemented for his beloved Wife, Rebecca is the most essential thing that the trustees need to be doing as per the law. Apart from this law, the charitable organizations also align here specifically keeping in mind St.Stephens church which is not for profit organization[2]. The trite needs to be complying with the charitable law and ensuring that the funds reach the reaches as being guaranteed under Malik's will. Similarly, they also need to take care of the qualification of the St.Stephen’s Church 

in order to receive the charitable donations that have been allocated in Malik’s will. Ultimately helps to maintain the decency level of providing funds intricately[1]. 

Garden shed is the thing that the trustees need to effectively transfer the ownership to his friend Caroline as per the feasibility of such a garden shed comes to an end. It makes the trustees should be able to ensure that the shed as instructed and maintain its ownership until such time the boarding will no longer be needed particularly. The wills and Probate typically explains this phenomenon where the validity, interpretation and execution of the wills as designed by Malik’s for the trustees to be executed. Trustees should be ensuring that the legal requirements of Malik’s will for validity and they comply with procedural requirements for greater probation things and statement admission is handed over to Caroline once the feasibility of such shed is longer needed. The validity of the ownership should be strongly complied in procedural forms for probating and permission is taken for handing over the ownership to Caroline. Further the property law is also applicable here where the Shed which is the property of Malik needs to be considering it poorly before handing over the ownership particularly the ownership of such assets is changed to Caroline should be done by ensuring those follow the transfers and everything is conducted in lawful manner ahead. 

In terms of one Half of Residency Estate to Hillsfield Social Club for a Squash Court, the provision usually includes a huge aspect of the bequest to the Hills Field Social club for effectively constructing and maintaining the squash court[1]. The reason is that such a squash court needs to be maintained in memory of his Beloved late wife, Rebecca. However, it is found that the club is willing to use such funds in the advertisement campaigns instead. The trustees need to effectively follow the contract law, preferably in this kind of situation which involves contractual agreement and obligations to be followed. Trustees need to be referring to the principles for ensuring that the terms are legally benign followed and enforced. Further it will also be helpful in ensuring that Hillsfield Social Club being one of the parties to maintain the squash court should be doing it elegantly without spending in the advertisement campaign[2]. The trustees should ensure that Malik’s interests should be met rather than what the club wants to be doing. However, the trustees are also entitled to communicate to the club about such wishes probably they are needing to find a solution that benefits both prairie i.e. fulfills Malik’s wishes and also meets the club interest in using it for their advertisement campaign largely. The bequest of modification of the terms can also be done by taking permission from the court so that both parties' interests are aligned within the will that has been made[3]. This is because some of the terms might be paramount in Malik’s will which does not benefit the club to seem eternal. Thus, a common ground needs to be reached for the same by seeking courts approval on the matter ahead.

Section B
Question 2

The situation between Eric and Jeffrey typically involves the ownership and financial contributions that both of them have made till now, preferably for the house and the cottage.
In terms of house, Eric purchased the house for £10,000 with declaration of trust and all to mortgage money has been paid solely by Eric only. In terms of the financial continuing for the house, Jeffrey paid £200 and some furniture where Eric paid the Mortgage. However, later they opened a joint account for making contributions towards household expenses where Eric made regular contributions and Jeffrey occasionally paid. This is followed by Jeffery building a garage and also gardening landscapes beautification. The Law of Property Act 1925 governs the statute in terms of property ownership in England and Wales. The Section 1(1) (b) of the Law of Property Act 1925: Deals with the legal ownership of property here the express of the declaration of trust ideally ensures that the trust be adhered. However, in the case for the house no such declaration was made . The evaluation of the property increased diligently since its acquisition. The lack of contribution of Jeffrey also seemed to be happening. It is explained by the case of Stack v Dowden (2007) which establishes common intention for sharing ownership of property must be proven and financial contributions aligned are not sufficient for establishing such 

intentions rightfully[1]. As a result, Jeffrey's final contribution is not alone to suffice the ownership aspects and the financial contribution is not enough to establish the intention rightfully. 

In terms of the cottage, Eric and Jeffrey both purchased the cottage in 2006 for £20,500 on both of their names and no declaration of trust took place. Initially Eric paid most of the mortgage and Jeffrey made a small contribution from his personal account. For the past five Jeffrey has been solely responsible for laying form his personal account and repayment of the mortgage too. Jeffrey after being ordered to leave the house currently lives in the cottage after paying all the mortgages, repayments and expresses himself. The overall value of the cottage increased seemingly after its purchase. The law of Property Act 1925, joint ownership of the property implies that each owner has made equal share in the property unless stated otherwise. In terms of the resultant aspects, the case of Jones Vs Krnott in 2011 typically establishes the fact where a property held in joint name with express declaration of trust, the coil will be determining the parties to respectively share based on their common intention at the time of purchase with such amount of conduct being made[2]. The aspects of Eric joint ownership ideally gives him the string claim to a share of the cottage, however, he has handed 100% ownership to Jeffrey which makes Eric very much generous of such a thing. The order of staying in the cottage for Jeffery is blessing in disguise despite being the joint owner, Eric commitment to make the cottage available for Jeffery is good things which Jeffery should be taking ideally[1]. The reason is that no declaration of trust law principles seemed to happen which makes both of them to be legally owners of such things. 

Analysis

In terms of Eric, being the sole legal owner of the house as it was purchased in his name without any declaration and Jeffrey made some financial contribution. The claim of Jeffery as per the Law of Property Act 1925 to be weaker. In terms of the Cottage, the initial contribution made by Eric makes him a strong contender and gives him joint ownership for making a claim for sharing the cottage's value . It also makes Jeffrey to be less weak, however, Jerrefry being allowed to stay is a blessing in disguise which he should be thankful about.

Recommendation

The law stated that Jeffrey's claim should be rejected and Eric should be retaining the full 100% of the house ownership. In terms of the cottage, both of them should negotiate the cottages value based on their financial contribution and their subsequent contribution made by Jeffrey . The fair division could involve Jeffrey reimbursing Eric for his final contribution for the cottage’s purchase and subsequent amount of contribution payment made by Jeffrey should be taken into consideration.

Overall, financial contributions of both of the properties are very much significant, the legal ownership and financial responsibility needs to be assessed separately. It would be suggested that Eric retaining the house and Jeffrey retaining the cottage by paying off the mortgages paid by Eric initially would seem to them to have fair distribution of everything preferably for both the properties when there is missing trust declaration between them largely.  

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank