|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- If it is decided that this merge should take place, Living Trust is the one to retain, as it is by far the more commonly used term. However, there are numerous different specific types of trusts, each with its own peculiarities and regiments, that I vote to keep all of them separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Triplewiki (talk • contribs) on 00:09, 3 November 2006
- I support the merger of living trust and inter vivos trust. Both are essentially revocable trusts. Moreover, "inter vivos" means living or more appropriately while living. I would support the relabeling of the merger as revocable trusts (aka living or intervivos trusts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Samoan (talk • contribs) on 22:46, 7 November 2006
- Not quite sure what has happened here. Originally the second comment above was a dissent from the merger (check page history), and was posted by ananymous IP address User:22.214.171.124. On 08:06, 15 November 2006 the comment was edited by another anonymous IP address User:126.96.36.199 to change it to a support, and to change the unsigned tag signature to User:Samoan. It may all be the same person using different computers, but it all looks a great deal more suspicious than it needs to, except for the fact that it is a discussion on a proposed merge between two little read and little cited articles on Wikipedia, and no one really cares. Also curious, User:Samoan's first edit (check under contribs) pre-dates the merge tag, so you would have thought that if it really was his comment, he would have made the unsigned comment whilst logged on. All of which leads me to conclude, that it was User:Samoan who was behind the grassy knoll when JFK was shot.
- Legis 08:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing shady is going on here... I made the change. I not very Wiki saavy so I apologize. What I meant to say was that I disagree with the prior statement that Living Trust is the one to retain. Both Living Trust and Inter Vivos Trust are the same, but they both fall under the rubric of Revocable trusts. I agree though that there should be a merger.
They mean the same thing. One term is English and the other is Latin. Both are not necessarily revocable. A living (or inter vivos) trust may be recovable or irrevocable.
Added the ZA stuff
I added the ZA info. In doing so, I made *minor changes* to the first few paragraphs of the article, but Wikipedia's DIFF function seems to think that I had made major changes. :-) Oh, and I forgot to log in when I added the stuff. Once again, IANAL. -- leuce 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have time to attend to this at the moment, but the article needed some clarification. I've made a few changes. Under most legal systems following the English common law system, a "living" trust is simply a trust created inter vivos -- between living people. In other words, it's a trust created by a person during his life (as opposed to a testamentary trust, which is a trust he or she provides for in a will, and which is created only upon death).
A living trust, an inter vivos trust, can be either revocable or irrevocable during the life time of the creator (the grantor, settlor, trustor). Some people do use the term "living trust" more narrowly -- to refer only to a revocable trust created during life. That usage of the term is not precisely correct.
In most jurisdictions following the English common law, the general rule is that a person cannot set up a trust with himself as sole trustee and sole beneficiary. By definition, there must be at least some separation of what is called "legal title" from what is called "equitable title." This means that the same person cannot be both the sole trustee AND the sole beneficiary at the same time. If the same person holds both full legal title and full equitable title, the trust as a general rule automatically ceases to exist (there are exceptions to this rule).
The laws of many jurisidictions do allow the creation of a trust with, say, two trustees who happen to also be the beneficiaries of that trust. In that circumstances, it can be said that each trustee, "X," holds legal title for the benefit of at least one person who is not "X" -- thus avoiding the problem of the merger of ALL legal and equitable title.
I know this sounds complicated, but I'll try to revisit this article soon, and see if the article is technically accurate on this kind of stuff. Yours, Famspear 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dear fellow editors: I have made some more changes to the article, but I'm still not happy with the result. This article needs a major re-thinking. Without having gone through the entire edit history, I think that part of the problem is that the article may have originally been conceived to address primarily one particular kind of living trust -- namely, the living revocable trust where the creator names himself or herself as primary beneficiary. In fact, some living trusts are set up with the grantor (the creator) not being either a trustee or a beneficiary, and some living trusts are set up as irrevocable. Perhaps the article needs to be a bit more general at first, and then go into the possible different variations of a living trust, and how each variation can be used. Any ideas, anyone? Yours, Famspear 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- >>: When in the course of Human Events becomes necessary to DISAMBIGUATE, then just do it. While I don't disagree that a living trust may be revocable or irrevocable, may or may not have PEOPLE as beneficiaries, and countless other details, we should keep our eyes on the prize. The prize is IMHO to edify not to obfuscate. COMMONLY (in the US) a (revocable) Living Trust is used to avoid the Probate of a deceased's Estate. All of the other flavors may or may not be detailed, but it seems to me that there is likely little similarity in the interests of the READERS of an article on LTs as probate avoidance and those interested in irrevocable living trusts, for instance. So, while simple LTs are a subset of Trusts, they merit their own article as specialized tools. Perhaps another article on trusts is where to stuff all of the arcania--dimwitdwatyahoo.com::<<:
I reverted this change by 188.8.131.52 because the article referenced doesn't seem like a particularly good source - it takes a very POV position, promotes the sale of an eBook and doesn't appear to have undergone any sort of independent review. The IP address adding the link has previously only edited to add the global-wills.com site to Wikipedia pages, so I'm also suspicious of spam. But having said that it is a reference for a currently virtually unsourced article. So I was hoping some other editors could review and provide their opinions. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this separate from Trust?
I have merged the content to Trust law, and will now redirect this there, as no-one has commented on this at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdroid (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)