Talk:Trust (law)

Sacred trusts and legal review of International Trusteeship System
Can this article please provide some clarification whether articles 73 and 76 of the Charter of the United Nations are referring to trusts, which type of trust they may be, whether the Charter constitutes statutory authority within member states of the organization, how does the General Assembly provide authorization such as in article 85, whether the General Assembly is a party to trusteeship agreements, and does the agreement require signatures of every UN member and future member? I note Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations appears to refer to a sacred trust obligation for territories that have yet to attain a "full measure of self-government", and in clause (e) states the obligation to transmit data concerning such territories changes when such territories become subject to Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter; but what else if anything is changing if Chapters XII and XIII becomes applicable? Daeron (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to include examples to illustrate motivations for: "However, Crusaders often encountered refusal to hand over the property upon their return."
Through some clicks about the British East India Company, I ended up on several pages describing "trusts" and why "trust law" is important.

The page on Trust Law (and several other Wikipedia pages) contains a the section and subsection "English common law > History", and the second paragraph that starts as follows:

At the time, land ownership in England was based on the feudal system. When a landowner left England to fight in the Crusades, he conveyed ownership of his lands in his absence to manage the estate and pay and receive feudal dues, on the understanding that the ownership would be conveyed back on his return. However, Crusaders often encountered refusal to hand over the property upon their return. Unfortunately for the Crusader, English common law did not recognize his claim. As far as the King's courts were concerned, the land belonged to the trustee, who was under no obligation to return it. . ..

I looked through the "What Wikipedia Is Not" page, and I still think the following question deserves some kind of -- even just a couple of words -- answer:


 * What, exactly or roughly, is referred to as the unstated "object" of the phrase, "...he conveyed ownership of his lands in his absence to manage the estate and pay and receive feudal dues,...". Is the ownership conveyed to a person -- e.g., a relative or a neighboring or "trusted" landowner? Is it conveyed to some more formal organization, like a church?
 * My real starting point was to grasp what led to major events in Chinese history, e.g., the Opium Wars, and this is what ended me up on the "Trusts" page. Not knowing anything about the motivations of all the entities (people, organizations/associations, or something else) to not return the land to the original landholder will not directly hurt my understanding of the Opium Wars, but: Given that "trust" and "equity" are basic parts of law around the world today, I think it would help to include a "For example, ..." sentence, listing who the typical "refusal" parties were, since the article implies that the "refusal" incidents were what led to major changes in legal systems.

I would be happy for even a minimal "for example" sentence, from which I can pursue other sources for more depth of understanding.

Thanks so much.

User:Obl obl 08:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   16:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Trust law → Trust (law) – This article is not a member of Category:Law by issue and does not discuss much about jurisprudence. The distinction between the term "Trust" (in law) and the subfield "Trust law" is analogous to that between Estate (law) and Estate law (or Property law). fgnievinski (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Schierbecker (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Reported to WikiProject Law. 98.248.84.55 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Eh, I could see it either way. There aren't separate articles for trusts and the law of trusts, so this covers both. If this were more detailed about jurisprudence, it could risk glossing over differences between jurisdictions. There are, however, jurisdiction-specific articles that go into more detail about that (English trust law, United States trust law, Trust law in civil law jurisdictions, etc.). SilverLocust 💬 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the title is awkward and probably fails WP:NATURAL, Britannica uses just "Trust".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is about "trusts", the concept, but not about the "law field that studies trusts" neither "laws regulating trusts". --Onwa (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Can anybody explain how the purpose section got so silly?
Seems like 90% of these "purposes" are actually just users. They're used by construction firms and corporations and charities and pensions and tax avoiders.

But EVERYTHING on that list, EXCEPT tax avoidance, can and is regularly accomplished in historic societies with totally different or even nonexistent trust laws. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:AB5C:D9AC:4A9E:CB63 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Correction in lead paragraph re: inter vivos trust
The lead paragraph described inter vivos trusts as revocable trusts created during the settlor's lifetime. I deleted the word revocable because inter vivos trusts can be revocable or irrevocable. See, e.g., 159 Am. Jur. Trials 1 (2019) ("an inter vivos trust may be designated as either revocable or irrevocable.") (citing From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. v. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 370 Md. 152, 184, 803 A.2d 548, 568 (2002)) Am I missing something? (I realize that trusts designated irrevocable might actually be revocable in some circumstances, but the prior version of the lead still seemed incorrect). Jameson Nightowl (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)