Regas v. Danigeles (1964), 54 Ill. App. 2d 271, 203 N.E.2d 730,
CASE SUMMARY:
FOUR PERSONS BECOME THE JOINT AND EQUAL BENEFICIARIES OF A POT OF LAND AND BUILDING THEREON HELD ON TRUST BY A BANK PURSUANT TO A TRUST ARRANGEMENT MADE BY DECEASED PERSON. UNDER THE TRUST AGREEMENT, NEITHER BENEFICIARIES ARE ALLOWED TO SEVER OR PARTITION THE LATENT EQUAL QUOTIENT OF 25 PERCENT EACH WITH TRUSTEE BEING THE EQUITABLE OWNER. BUT EACH ARE FREE TO TRANSFER THEIR SHARE TO OUTSIDERS LIKE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS.
THE TRUST IN THE INSTANT CASE IS MADE DIFFERENT BECAUSE FOUR BENEFICIARIES SEEM TO BE QUITE ATTENTIVE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ESTATE THUS MANIFESTING THE STRONG INTER-PERSONNAL RELATIONSIHP UPON WHICH THIS TRUST IS BUILT. AS SUCH, THE BENEFICIARIES ARE UNLIKELY TO TRANSFER THEIR SHARES AS NONE OF THEM WANTS TO BE EXLUDED FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ESTATE.
IT IS FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE THAT THE TRUST MORE RESEMBLES A PARTNERSHIP. THE NEW ENACTED TRUST AGREEGMENT SMACK OF THIS EUQAL SHARE OF MANAGEMENT OF TRUST BY STIPULATING A 75 PERCENT OF SHARES NEEDED TO DIRECT THE BANK TRUSTEE IN ADMINISTERING THE ESTATE. WITH TWO BROTHERS COMPRISING 50 PERCENT OF THE SHARES AND THEIR BROTHERS IN LAW TAKING UP THE LATTER HALF, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THIS QUASI CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP IS MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO A DEADLOCK. THE PRESAGE BECOME REAL WHEN TWO BROTHERS ON ONE SIDE VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH THEIR BROTHERS IN LAW OVER CHOOSING TENENTS. GIVEN NONE OF THEM IS COMPETENT TO OVERWHELM THE OTHER BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY. THE BROTHERS SUE FOR A WOUND UP OF THE PARTNERSHIP.
SINCE THE CASE INVOLVES NOTHING OF OPPRESION ON MINORITY SUCH AS EXCLUSION OF MANAGEMENT, IMPROPER PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE MAJORITY, EJUSDEM GENERIS, THE CHANGES OF BEING ADWADED A REPERCHASE OF SHARES BY THE SUED, THE COURT SEES IT FIT TO PROVIDE A WOUND-UP OF THE PARTNERSHIP ON THE GROUND THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE BOGGED DOWN IN A STALEMATE WHERE NO DECISION CAN BE MADE ON ANYTHING.
JUDGING FROM THE SITUATION, THE CASE IS ACCEPTABLY WELL DECIDED ONLY EXCERPT THAT THE TRUST TACITLY ALLOW TRANSFER OF BENEFICIARY INTERESTS WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN A PARTNERSHIP. AFTER ALL, THE ESTATE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT HEAVILY BUILT ON INTER-DEPENDENCE AND MUTUAL TRUST OF THE FOUR PARTIES. BUT IT CAN ALSO BE ARGUED THAT THE TRANSFER IS DE FACTO RESTIRCTIED TO THOSE WHO ARE NONCHALANT TO THE LEASING OF THE ESTATE, WHICH IS NOT USUALLY THE CASE FOR LANDLORD AND OWNER OF THE ESTATE. SO THE FAIR RESPONSE IS THAT ESTATE CO-OWNERSHIP HAS A PROPENSITY TOWARDS PARTNERSHIP ESPECIALLY WHEN CO-OWNERS WHO ARE KEEN ON PARTICIPATION OF MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE ENTER INTO AN AGREEGMENT TO THAT EFFECT. IT CAN ALSO BE SAID IN PASSING THAT THE TRUSTEE’S TITLE IN ESTATE IS OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE the realities of ownership are far more important than the technicalities of transfer. In other branches of law, where control is the best indicia of ownership, appellate courts have found the beneficiaries to be owners.
THIS CASE CAN BE COMPARED WITH ANOTHER CASE OF Sajdak v Sajdak WHERE A DECEASED MOTHER UPON HER DEATH BEQUEATHS AN ESTATE TO HER DAUGHTER AND SON WITH THE SISTER ASSUMING 70 PERCENT OF THE SHARES. THE RATIO PREDETERMINE THAT BORTHER IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SHARE POWER OF MANAGEMENT AND THE SISTER IS IN ACTUAL CONTROL OF THE ESTATE. THE DISPUTES ARISE WHEN THE BROTEHR ASK FOR RENTS BY THE SISTER WHO ACCUPIES THE ESTATE FOR A SHORT SPAN OF TIME WITH LEASING.
发表于 2008-3-9 15:22:32