Beneficiary Principle - Case Study Example

Therefore, it can be safely deduced that Grant's final intention was to give the "Gatesgarth" house to Polly. The latter's failure to register the title transfer in her favor with the Land Registry is of no moment. This is so despite the provision in Section 23 of the Probate Law subsequent conveyance or any other act done after the execution of the will shall not prevent the operation of the will. b.) No, Joe is not entitled to the shares in Smallco Ltd. It is required by law that in case of transfer of stocks or shares in a company, the same must be done by executing a stock transfer form and deliver it to the company together with the stock or share certificate for the specific purpose of transferring the name in the stock certificate and in the stock and transfer book of the company.

It is only upon registration of such transfer that the transfer binds third parties. The act of Grant handing his share certificate for 1000 shares in Smallco Ltd. . RSCPA is entitled to the shares in Smallco Ltd. This is in accordance with Grant's valid will, giving the rest of his estate to RSPCA, which is a registered charity. Since the state does not recognize the principle of "legitime" or "forced heirship", it is the will of the decedent that should be followed in the distribution of estate.

By virtue of this provision in Grant's will which gives effect to the principle of residuary devises, all monies and properties of Grant that did not pass to some particular beneficiaries shall be given to RSPCA.c.) Grant's telephone conversation with Tom during his lifetime regarding the trust has no legal effect whatsoever. A mere telephone conversation will not suffice as to validly effect a transfer of benefits under a trust agreement. To effect such transfer of shares to Polly, Grant must have executed a formal deed of conveyance during his lifetime, prior to the transfer of shares to Polly so as to validate the same.

Tom's act of transferring the shares to Polly without a formal act on the part of Grant has no legal effect whatsoever as it is not supported by a legal document to prove the intent of Grant to let go of his shares in favor of Polly. Since transfer of stocks requires compliance with certain formalities as execution of a deed of transfer or any act of formal conveyance and presentation thereof together with the stock certificate to the company for purposes of transferring the registration in the stock and transfer book, and issuing a new stock certificate in the name of another person, the transfer made by Tom is therefore unlawful and is considered null and void.

Henceforth, title to the shares of stock must revert back to Grant's estate and be distributed according to his