- Internal Code :
- Subject Code : LWZ211
- University : Charles Darwin University
- Subject Name : Law
Trusts S220-Report
Table of Contents
Introduction.
Discussion.
Conclusion.
Introduction to Beneficiary Law
In this case study, a reprint is being prepared on the lawful course of action that is to be taken by the Client Suellen Morgan in regard to her right on the parent's property posts their demise. In the course of the report the issue of facts, the various laws that get intertwined in the property law case study, and the principle on which the report will be based will be the main focus of the discussion. Since the property in the discussion was bought by the father with help from Suellen's brothers so how just was the decision to have it registered in George's name is another problem point of the case that needs to be focused further.
Discussion on Beneficiary Law
It can be specified that many of the remaining descendants of the late Lance Crenshaw have the stakes real interests either as a proponent or an opponent in the questions of entitlement to the benefit of the Muirhead home unit its rental income or its proceeds of its sale. First of all, it can be seen that when Lance Crenshaw bought the house he took money from his sons. It can widely be seen that Lance borrowed $5000 from George and also $10,000 from Richard Crenshaw and Harry Crenshaw which were his sons as well which they gave as a gift to their parents. So it might be seen that if they are giving it as a gift to their patients they cannot ask for the house and even George confirmed in an affidavit that he has no beneficiary interest in the Muirhead unit. But if the question of beneficiaries comes and the people who have interests in the stake in the sale renting or the different types of decisions made in the home unit it can be said that all the children have proper interests as the house was their father's. Roy Grant can also be a part of the stake because he was also the son of Lance.
The present case is about Suellen Morgan's property rights who is the daughter of the Late Harriet Crenshaw and Mr. Lancelot Crenshaw. After the demise of their mother, Suellen who has three brothers is in the inquiry of her parent's property to which she also has a right and is the lawful heir. The issue here is that none of the parents felt behind any proper will as per say and elder brother, names George is already dead and the other two brothers do not have any knowledge about the property or the finances of their demised parents. Suellen is seen consulting a lawyer named Eunice Shriver with whose help she would present the probate application for her mother's will. Here, the lawyer is seen advising Suellen to inquire from her brothers about the Muirhead home.
Furthermore, her lawyer asks her to know about the rental income or the proceeds of the sale of the property. Meanwhile, the lawyer was seen gathering information about the position of the property by running a title search.[1] As the daughter, by the court of law, she has equal rights as her brothers in any financial as well as property owned by the parents. But since the father remarried and had a son from the second wife so he automatically becomes one of the beneficiaries as well. Moreover, in the will, the father mentioned that the procured from the unit should be given to his first wife Harriett till she lives and after her death, it should be given to Roy Crenshaw as he is in dire need of money plus the youngest of them all.
Here, we see that George who is the eldest son knew about everything and his name was in the papers as the beneficiary but his mother owned the property. With the passage time, the property which was bought for 22500 dollars was now to be sold at 65000 dollars. Since George died, Lindsay Crenshaw and Katrina Crenshaw were made sole beneficiaries as stated in the will. Now since the property was bought collectively by the brothers and father therefore all his children have a right on that property. But on the other hand, the other parties can also say that they are rightful beneficiaries as per the will and Harry and Richard can also claim their share. Now, as per the caught of law and by principle, Suellen can either go to the court and file a litigation case that she and her brothers have been denied property rights of their parents or on the other hand can get into an off the court settlement. [2]
There are certainly potential issues on which it can be considered to argue the case for it and them and by doing so legally supportable explanations of the views will be cited and also clarification will be done on content and policies, objectives, laws as well. The first case that can be identified in the given case scenario is who is the stakeholder beneficiary or the person responsible for all the earnings in the light of the Muirhead unit. It can be said that Lance had bought the unit in 1976 and his son George Received a letter in which Lance told that contribution had been made from his side but he is short of $5000 and George could help him.
It can also be seen that his other two sons also helped him in buying the house but it was a gift to the parents so they did not ask anything in return. After that, it can also be seen that when George died before that he said in an affidavit that he was not to put in any beneficial interest because after his divorce he said that he is not a registered proprietor. Yes, he helped his father by giving the money but his mother who was Harriet dissolved all the property and she was the beneficiary in this case. But it can be seen that the parents died as well as George right so there is a case of the beneficiary which is going on. Now the main point which should not be overlooked is that Lance wrote everything for his wife Harriet so when he passed away all the properties also passed to Harriet his wife[3].
When Harriet passed away she wrote everything to her daughter. In this case, His daughter should receive everything but there is also a complication that is noticed in this case scenario. A few years back George sold the house in the Muirhead unit and it can be seen that the amount was not distributed but George kept it with himself and some of it was passed onto others. When George died two office children were the sole beneficiaries of the amount and it can be seen that they dissolved it as George wrote it for them in court. But there is another side that has to be noticed in this particular case scenario, which is Lance had another affair. Where land said another affair he had also another sound with that person but now it can be seen when he is writing this letter to his son that the girl has married someone else.
It can also be seen that Lance has written that he has given a home to the girl and his son and also sent $1000 every month and when the girl had married someone else he is sending $500 every month to the son he had with his affair. Lance has also written to his son that when he is gone George should take care of his half brother because his mother will not understand it. There are certain things that have to be considered in this scenario and the first point is that their daughter who is Suellen has the proper right over any stake asset which can be bought or sold and even the money which comes from the sale of the house. In this scenario, it should also be considered that everyone did not know about the half brother that the children have and who is also known as Roy grant. In this case, a huge amount of responsibility comes as well as many consequences can be seen where it can be said that there are certain specific details which had been missed by everyone and even George cannot tell it now because he has also passed away and he did not say anything to anyone when he was alive.
Roy Grant has also the power of asking what is his in the case but as Harriet had written everything to her daughter it can be said that Roy does not have any type of fundamental right in this case because his father has also died[4]. The law of beneficiary should be considered in this case because it can be said a beneficiary is considered to be a person who received almost all the benefits of a particular person or an entity[5]. In this case beneficiary and the law regarding that is being used and the eligibility to be noted and considered for the different types of benefits that are confirmed has many specifications in the given policies documents even legal heirs to legal norms.
The second thing that has to be identified in this case scenario is that George sold that house in the Moorhead unit and the money that he got from that has been kept within himself and that has passed to his children that are now staying with Richard. The first point that comes into the head and regarding the scenario which is kept on the plate is that George could sell the house but everything in his father’s possession went to his mother[6]. Even in the divorce paper, it could be widely seen that George said that he was not in any beneficial way and he did not have any interest in the different types of spectrums of his father’s possession. It can also be noticed that at some points George did use the property which was not totally his and even in the case of stakeholders it can be said that many of the people invested money in that particular house so the money should be divided as well. But again the main question comes is that as his father wrote everything to his mother as a beneficiary so when George bought the house he would have given that amount of money to his mother because that house was practically and legally his mother’s possession. So in this type of case when George sold that house that money would have been gone to his mother and eventually his sister because his mother Harriet had written everything to his sister’s name.
It can also be seen that when George died the amount of money that was distributed to his children were obviously for a good reason and that should not be taken into consideration but it should also be remembered that his sister has a lot of amounts that Is expected to be with her and in her position has been divided in a certain way and it can also be seen that when the house was bought nothing of this sort was taken into consideration[7]. These types of examples can always be seen in many cases. But the main point that comes with this case scenario is how the assets will be handled and if Suellen would get the money which was received when that house was sold.
There are certain issues against this case that can be considered as potential and in doing so legally supportable explanations will be given and nature and content will also be described by considering different types of principles and doctrines as well. It can be noticed that Suellen has total property rise rights as her parent's deceased[8]. The scenario should be explained where after the just off the mother, Suellen had also three other brothers to whom she was answerable about the property not now but who also had the right to ask about the different types of assets and properties.
It can be noticed that George was the eldest of the brothers had already died and after further investigation, it is also seen that many hidden aspects can be taken into consideration which is related to the different types of assets monetary terms, and also financial findings. certain cases have been taken into consideration like the affair which was going on between the father and another lady. The next issue that has been identified is if the father had written everything to mother then George could not have taken everything when he sold the house but it can be seen that in this case, it happened so it also puts the question here that the sister should get the amount of which she is responsible. The sister should get the amount as in here Suellen should get the amount because she is now the rightful beneficiary of her parents as her mother wrote everything to her. It is identified that the father who is Lance had bought the home in 1976 and at the time George was the eldest of the brothers and sisters received a letter which Is found now. The next case that is identified here is said that Lance was in short of $5000 and in this case his son could help him but it is also seen that the other two sons also helped Lance buy the house but according to them it was a gift to the parents and as a result, they did not ask anything in return. The main issue that has been identified is when the affidavit of George is seen during his divorce where he said that the house was not of his interest and that his father had bought it and he was not a proprietor of that property[9].
It can also be seen when George was not a proprietor of that property then he could not have sold it before a few years of his death. In this scenario, several issues and Laws should be taken into consideration because it is seen that when George voted he did not give anything to his mother but his mother was the beneficiary and even the nominee of all the positions his father had. Even in this case it is seen when Harriet died the possessions she had she wrote it down to her daughter and in this case, his daughter should receive everything that is noticed in this scenario and every complication should be answered as well. The other cases were identified such as the affair and Roy Grant who was half brother of Suellen and Gorge as well. Now I support laws and principles. It can be said that swollen has to go to the court and file a case and also it can be said that she can go for settlement as well.
Conclusion on Beneficiary Law
For this situation study, a republish is being set up on the legal game-plan that will be taken by the Client Suellen Morgan as on her right side on the parent's property post their death. Over the span of the report the issue of realities, the different laws that get interweaved in the property law contextual investigation, and the rule on which the report will be based will be the primary focal point of the conversation. Since the property in conversation was purchased by the dad with assistance from Suellen's siblings so how simply was the choice to have it enrolled in George's name is another issue but of the case that should be focussed further.
[1] The issue here is the right to property of the deceased parents as stated in the case study.
[2]The information provided is from the case of Suellen’s Errand from the part where her lawyer asked her to gather information from her brothers.
[3] Beneficiary Law
[4] Beneficiary Law
[5] Fundamental Rights and policies
[6] Beneficiary Law
[7] Case Scenario
[8] Case Scenario
[9] Beneficiary Law
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help