Chapter 7 Self-test questions

. Where a bare trust of land existed prior to TOLATA 1996, which of the following statements was correct regarding the equitable fee simple under that trust? (Assume that the land is unregistered title.)

The equitable fee simple was overreachable.

The equitable fee simple was subject to the doctrine of notice.

The equitable fee simple was registrable as a Land Charge.

The equitable fee simple was 'good against the whole world', and automatically binding on all purchasers.

. Where there is a strict settlement of land, who is (normally) trustee of the legal estate in settled land?

The trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Act.

The beneficiary who is currently entitled to the profits etc. from the land.

The beneficiary who holds the fee simple in remainder.

The settlor's executors.

. In 2000, Alexis executed a deed (purportedly) conveying Dacha House 'to my daughter Grace in fee tail'. What is the effect of this deed?

Totally void.

Alexis holds Dacha House in trust for Grace in fee tail.

Alexis holds Dacha House in trust for Grace in fee simple.

Alexis conveys the legal fee simple in Dacha House to Grace.

. Where a trust of land is created, but the trustees can only sell the land with the consent of named persons, which of the following propositions is true?

The named persons must be beneficiaries of the trust.

The named persons must not be beneficiaries under the trust.

The named persons can be anybody.

The named persons can be anybody of full age.

. Makoto is expecting to die within the next four months. Today he executed a deed which says 'I hereby convey my house, 48 Crownhills Road, to my son Hayao, on condition that my beloved wife Chihiro can occupy the house for the rest of her life'. What is the result of this deed?

The house is held on trust by Makoto's executors on trust for Chihiro for her life, remainder to Hayao in fee simple.

The house is held by Chihiro, on trust for herself for life, remainder to Hayao in fee simple.

The house is held by Makoto as trustee, on trust for Chihiro for life, remainder to Makoto in fee simple.

Makoto gets the legal fee simple, but holds it on trust for Chihiro for life, remainder to himself in fee simple.

. In 1985, land (purportedly) conveyed to P, Q, R, S, T and U as trustees for sale. Back in 1985, R was only sixteen year old. S died in 2000. Who are now the trustees?

P, Q, R, T and U.

P, Q, and R.

P, Q, T and U.

P, Q and T.

. Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, as expanded by section 19 of TOLATA 1996, in what circumstances can the beneficiaries sack the existing trustees and replace them with new ones?

If the beneficiaries are all of full age, they are unanimous, and the consent of the court is obtained.

If the beneficiaries are all of full age, and are unanimous as to what should happen.

If those beneficiaries who are of full age are unanimous as to what should happen, the position of beneficiaries who are under age can be ignored.

If the majority of beneficiaries by value want to sack the trustees.

. In what circumstances may trustees act by a majority decision?

Only if the trust is a charitable trust.

In no circumstances.

Only if there is an express clause in the trust documents authorising the trustees to act by a majority.

If there is an express clause in the trust documents authorising the trustees to act by a majority, or the trust is a charitable trust.

. Timmy and Tommy hold Lowtrees House in trust for Kirk for life, remainder to Linda in fee simple. A lease over Lowtrees House has just expired and the tenant has left. Kirk claims that he has the right to live in Lowtrees House. What is the correct position?

Kirk has an automatic right to live in the house, whatever the circumstances.

Kirk does not have the right to live in the house.

Kirk has the right to live in the house if either the trust was set up for the purposes of providing a home for Kirk, or the house was acquired by the trustees for the purpose of providing a home for Kirk.

Kirk only has the right to live in the house if the trust was set up for the purposes of providing him with a home.

. A trust of land was set up in 2005. Under the trust, Tanil and Tanzi hold Crowthorne Farm in trust for Lala for life, remainder to Ricardo in fee simple. There is no clause in the trust deed exempting the trustees from liability for negligence.
In 2011, Tanil and Tanzi delegated almost all their powers in relation to the farm to Lala. She has made a total mess of things. Ricardo wants to sue the trustees for the loss in value of the farm. Which of the following propositions is correct?

The trustees are never liable; only Lala is liable.

The trustees will automatically be liable for the losses caused by Lala.

The trustees will be liable only if the initial decision in 2005 to delegate to Lala was not a reasonable one.

The trustees will be liable if either the initial decision to delegate was negligent or they failed to keep the delegation 'under review'.

Quiz Content