Infectious invalidity

Last updated

Infectious invalidity is a doctrine of property law that provides that under certain defined circumstances because one action is improper another action is invalid. [1] If applicable, the failure of certain transfers may cause interests that are otherwise valid to fail also. This approach was taken in the Massachusetts case of New England Trust Co. v. Sanger, 337 Mass. 342, 149 N.E.2d 598 (1958).

The Restatement (2d) of Property, which is a treatise describing general legal principles applied by the courts in the United States states that

Infectious invalidity means that the failure of certain transfers may cause interests that are otherwise valid to fail also. This approach was taken in New England Trust Co. v. Sanger, 337 Mass. 342, 149 N.E.2d 598 (1958). A trust provided for income to be paid to the surviving children of the settlor's brother for life, and on the death of the last surviving child of the settlor's brother, an equal division of the trust principle was to be made among the issue of the children of the settlor's brother. The gift to the issue of the brother's children failed, because the ascertainment of issue could not be made until the brother's children died, and the brother might have children born after the creation of the trust who might not die within the permissible period. However, a later trust had been established by the settlor, which stated that if any provision in the first trust indenture should be declared invalid, any income or principal which reverted to his estate should be deemed held in trust by the settlor for the benefit of his brother's children and their issue. Applying the doctrine of infectious invalidity to avoid a distortion of the settlor's "clear desire," the court held that the second trust should govern the trust distribution. It stated that by striking down all the gifts, valid and invalid, made in the first trust, and by giving effect to the second trust, the settlor's plan for the income gifts was substantially carried out. [§ 1.5 comment 7]

In zoning law, infectious invalidity is a principle where a parcel of land that itself complies with zoning requirements is considered to be in violation of zoning laws because of the circumstances of its creation. The situation arises when a parcel of land is improperly divided into two lots, resulting in one of the new lot conforming to the applicable zoning standards and one lot not conforming. The legal principle is applied resulting in the conforming lot being deemed to be infected because of the illegal condition created on the other lot and the creation of the two lots is deemed invalid. Infectious invalidity affects both zoning and property ownership rights.

Related Research Articles

Trust law Three-party fiduciary relationship

A trust is a three-party fiduciary relationship in which the first party, the trustor or settlor, transfers ("settles") a property upon the second party for the benefit of the third party, the beneficiary.

Estate planning

Estate planning is the process of anticipating and arranging, during a person's life, for the management and disposal of that person's estate during the person's life, in the event the person becomes incapacitated and after death. The planning includes the bequest of assets to heirs and may include minimizing gift, estate, generation skipping transfer, and taxes. Estate planning includes planning for incapacity as well as a process of reducing or eliminating uncertainties over the administration of a probate and maximizing the value of the estate by reducing taxes and other expenses. The ultimate goal of estate planning can only be determined by the specific goals of the estate owner and may be as simple or complex as the owner's wishes and needs directs. Guardians are often designated for minor children and beneficiaries in incapacity.

Subdivision (land)

Subdivision is the act of dividing land into pieces that are easier to sell or otherwise develop, usually via a plat. The former single piece as a whole is then known in the United States as a subdivision. Subdivisions may be simple, involving only a single seller and buyer, or complex, involving large tracts of land divided into many smaller parcels. If it is used for housing it is typically known as a housing subdivision or housing development, although some developers tend to call these areas communities.

Express trust

An express trust is a trust created "in express terms, and usually in writing, as distinguished from one inferred by the law from the conduct or dealings of the parties." Property is transferred by a person to a transferee, who holds the property for the benefit of one or more persons, called beneficiaries. The trustee may distribute the property, or the income from that property, to the beneficiaries. Express trusts are frequently used in common law jurisdictions as methods of wealth preservation or enhancement.

Purpose trust

A purpose trust is a type of trust which has no beneficiaries, but instead exists for advancing some non-charitable purpose of some kind. In most jurisdictions, such trusts are not enforceable outside of certain limited and anomalous exceptions, but some countries have enacted legislation specifically to promote the use of non-charitable purpose trusts. Trusts for charitable purposes are also technically purpose trusts, but they are usually referred to simply as charitable trusts. People referring to purpose trusts are usually taken to be referring to non-charitable purpose trusts.

Hague Trust Convention

The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, or Hague Trust Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on the Law Applicable to Trusts. It concluded on 1 July 1985, entered into force 1 January 1992, and is as of September 2017 ratified by 14 countries. The Convention uses a harmonised definition of a trust, which is the subject of the convention, and sets Conflict rules for resolving problems in the choice of the applicable law. The key provisions of the Convention are:

Supplemental needs trust

Supplemental needs trust is a US-specific term for a type of special needs trust. Supplemental needs trusts are compliant with provisions of US state and federal law and are designed to provide benefits to, and protect the assets of, individuals with physical, psychiatric, or intellectual disabilities, and still allow such persons to be qualified for and receive governmental health care benefits, especially long-term nursing care benefits, under the Medicaid welfare program.

Hotchpot

In civil and property law, hotchpot is the blending, combining or offsetting of property to ensure equality of a later division of property.

Nonconforming use is a type of zoning variance where a parcel of land may be given an exception from current zoning ordinances due to improvements made by a prior owner or before the current zoning ordinances made the desired use non-conforming under local law. Secondary suites are commonly permitted as a non-conforming use in the zoning district they are located in because the suite was developed prior to the zoning ordinance coming into effect.

United States trust law Law regulating a wealth-holding legal instrument

United States trust law is the body of law regulating the legal instrument for holding wealth known as a trust.

Australian trust law is the law of trusts as it is applied in Australia. It is derived from, and largely continues to follow English trust law, as modified by state and federal legislation. A number of unique features of Australian trust law arise from interactions with the Australian systems of company law, family law and taxation.

A charitable remainder unitrust is an irrevocable trust created under the authority of Internal Revenue Code § 664 ("Code"). This special, irrevocable trust has two primary characteristics: (1) Once established, the CRUT distributes a fixed percentage of the value of its assets to a non-charitable beneficiary ; and (2) At the expiration of a specified time, the remaining balance of the CRUTs assets are distributed to charity. The trustee determines the fair market value of the CRUT's assets at the time of contribution, and thereafter on the applicable valuation date. The fixed annuity percentage must be at least 5% and no more than 50% of the fair market value of the assets in the corpus. The remainder must be at least 10% of the fair market value of the assets contributed to the CRUT. Code Section 664(d)(1) sets the federal income tax requirements for a charitable remainder unitrust.

Three certainties

The three certainties refer to a rule within English trusts law on the creation of express trusts that, to be valid, the trust instrument must show certainty of intention, subject matter and object. "Certainty of intention" means that it must be clear that the donor or testator wishes to create a trust; this is not dependent on any particular language used, and a trust can be created without the word "trust" being used, or even the donor knowing he is creating a trust. Since the 1950s, the courts have been more willing to conclude that there was intention to create a trust, rather than hold that the trust is void. "Certainty of subject matter" means that it must be clear what property is part of the trust. Historically the property must have been segregated from non-trust property; more recently, the courts have drawn a line between tangible and intangible assets, holding that with intangible assets there is not always a need for segregation. "Certainty of objects" means that it must be clear who the beneficiaries, or objects, are. The test for determining this differs depending on the type of trust; it can be that all beneficiaries must be individually identified, or that the trustees must be able to say with certainty, if a claimant comes before them, whether he is or is not a beneficiary.

Charitable trusts in English law Express trusts dedicated to charitable goals in English law

Charitable trusts in English law are a form of express trust dedicated to charitable goals. There are a variety of advantages to charitable trust status, including exception from most forms of tax and freedom for the trustees not found in other types of English trust. To be a valid charitable trust, the organisation must demonstrate both a charitable purpose and a public benefit. Applicable charitable purposes are normally divided into categories for public benefit including the relief of poverty, the promotion of education, the advancement of health and saving of lives, promotion of religion and all other types of trust recognised by the law. There is also a requirement that the trust's purposes benefit the public, and not simply a group of private individuals.

Cy-près doctrine in English law

The cy-pres doctrine in English law is an element of trusts law dealing with charitable trusts. The doctrine provides that when such a trust has failed because its purposes are either impossible or cannot be fulfilled, the High Court of Justice or Charity Commission can make an order redirecting the trust's funds to the nearest possible purpose. For charities with a worth under £5,000 and no land, the trustees may make the decision to redirect the trust's funds. The doctrine was initially an element of ecclesiastical law, coming from the Norman French cy près comme possible, but similar and possibly ancestral provisions have been found in Roman law, both in the Corpus Juris Civilis and later Byzantine law.

A purpose trust in English law is a trust created for the fulfillment of a purpose, not for the benefit of a person. These are normally considered invalid by the courts because they have no legally recognized beneficiaries, therefore nobody to enforce the trust, with the exception of charitable trusts, which are enforceable by Attorney General as they represent public interest. As well as charitable trusts, there are several exceptions to the rules against purpose trusts. If the requirement to fulfill a purpose is a request, rather than an obligation, the trust is valid; a trust will also be found valid if, while being for a purpose, it involves beneficiaries in some respect. Purpose trusts can also be valid if they are for the erection or maintenance of tombs and memorials, the maintenance of animals, and arguably the saying of masses, although these must all obey the rule against perpetuities and not continue for more than 21 years after the testator's death.

<i>Leahy v Attorney-General (NSW)</i>

Leahy v Attorney-General for New South Wales is an Australian and English trusts law case involving a charitable trust, heard by the High Court of Australia in 1958, and the Privy Council in 1959. The proceeding concerned the validity a gift to an unincorporated body, concluding that gifts in trust "cannot be made to a purpose or to an object" except for charitable circumstances.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Lacombe</i>

Quebec (AG) v Lacombe, 2010 SCC 38, [2010] 2 SCR 453, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the ancillary powers that arise from the doctrine of pith and substance in Canadian constitutional law.

Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a town ordinance regulating a use of a property was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, finding the law in question was constitutional as an exercise of the town's police powers.

Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] UKHL 1 is an English trusts law case, concerning the doctrine of secret trusts.

References

  1. Bobrowski, Mark (2002). Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law: Zoning, Subdivision Control, and Nonzoning Alternatives. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 389. ISBN   0-7355-3004-1.