|
''Howe v Earl of Dartmouth'' (1802) 7 Ves 137 is an English trusts law case. It laid down the rule of equity in relation to the duties of a trustee in relation to a trust fund where there are successive interests in relation to the trust fund, and seeks to strike a fair balance between the rights of the life tenant and the remainderman. It is one of a number of highly technical common law rules which causes considerable angst where wills and trusts have not been professionally prepared. The general rule in relation to any trust fund is that the life tenant is entitled to all of the income, and the remainderman then takes all of the capital on the death of the life tenant. Under the rule in ''Howe v Earl of Dartmouth'' there may be duty to convert and reinvest authorised investments in the trust fund to maintain fairness between the life tenant and the remainderman.〔This is not the only reason that a duty to convert may arise; it may also arise under the terms of the trust instrument, or by statute (for example, in the United Kingdom see the Administration of Estates Act 1925).〕 There are two limbs to the rule: # investment; and # apportionment. ==Investment== The first limb of the rule establishes that, subject to any contrary provision in the will, there is a duty to convert where residuary personalty is settled by will in favour of persons who are to enjoy it in succession. The trustees should convert all such parts of the residuary fund which are wasting, or which are future or reversionary in nature〔ie. property which will only form part of the residuary estate after the death of the life tenant〕 or consist of unauthorised securities〔ie. not authorised by either the terms of will, or the statute governing trustee investments in the relevant jurisdiction〕 into a property of a permanent or income bearing character. So property such as speculative investments,〔As in ''Howe v Earl of Dartmouth'' itself〕 royalties, copyrights,〔Which will expire after a certain period of time in most legal systems; see ''Re Evan's Will Trusts'' () 2 Ch 309; ''Re Sullivan'' () 1 Ch 84〕 and, in some jurisdictions, leaseholds, should be converted in the interest of the remainderman. These are considered to be non-permanent investments, and may be of significantly reduced or no value by the time of the death of the life tenant. On the other hand "future" property, such as a remainder or a reversionary interest, or other property〔Examples from the cases include debts bearing no interest (''Re Duke of Cleveland's Estate'' () 2 Ch 542); a right to compensation under planning legislation (''Re Chance's Will Trusts'' () Ch 593; future instalments on the sale of a business (''Re Hollebone'' () 2 Ch 93; but no reversionary interests in land, which are outside the rule (''Re Woodhouse'' () Ch 332)〕 which at present produces no income, is of no immediate benefit to the life tenant. In the interest of the life tenant, such property should be converted into income bearing properties. In practical terms, the rule is of relatively limited application. It does not apply to property settled ''inter vivos''. It does not apply to specific residuary bequests.〔It being assumed that the testator intended in such cases for the specific property to be enjoyed successively, for better or worse.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Howe v Earl of Dartmouth」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|