Further to last week’s post, some feedback was received about other aspects of the decision mentioned (Keach & Keach).
To provide some more context to the main conclusion of the case mentioned last week, it is worth noting that:
1. The relevant trust was established by the father of the divorcing husband.
2. The father had all practical control over the trust as well as legal control.
3. While the main asset of the trust (being a home that the husband and wife were living in) was allegedly used by the husband 'as if it were his own', this did not change the legal ownership position.
4. In order for an arrangement to be a sham (and therefore, for example, for the trust’s ownership to be ignored), it must be shown that all relevant parties had the common intention to mislead others.
5. Even if the husband was conducting himself as if he were the owner, unless it could have been shown that the husband’s father intended the arrangement to be a sham, then there was no access to the assets of the trust.
6. Here the evidence was in fact the opposite – i.e. the husband’s father deliberately structured the arrangements to ensure that he retained control and direction of the trust. On this basis, the assets of the trust could not be considered as assets of the marriage.
Until next week.
