Thank you Jack
You always very kindly take the time to reply.
Your reply, was packed full of information and knowledge. It is only last two decades, that I have had some limited contact with Trusts. During this time more flexible powers have been common in discretionary trusts and flexible life interest trusts.
So I may generally think trusts are more amendable than they are. Being aware, of powers of amendment, including adding beneficiaries and possibly excluding beneficiaries.
I was interested to know if it was possible without the very wide, flexible powers which I believe are called the overriding powers, to achieve some flexibility, in a Trust. So if all the core beneficiaries consent, the trustees could amend a trust, but still have a reserve beneficiaries whose consent is not needed to amend.
The text below was from an Insurance company draft deed and caught my attention.
“and at any time during which there are no Beneficiaries under any of (i) to (vi) above, any company, body or trust established for charitable purposes only.”
What appeared to me after some thinking, in error this might be a “beneficiary” whose consent is not required, not a beneficiary at this moment in time as they would not benefit at that moment in time, but could in the future. I believe what is called a contingent interest. And because the charity or charities were not named, even more difficult for me to determine.
So in the insurance draft text this reserve beneficiary, at that moment in time, an undetermined charity or charities would be required, as they are a beneficiary.
I note what you say, Beneficiaries are normally fixed from the onset.
The only idea I could come up with, if allowed tac and trust law.
(1) was to make the reserve beneficiaries revocable?
(2) Or stating that any reserve beneficiaries consent is not required to amend the trust?
For better understanding and
A concern of the Overriding Powers being flawed, partly from a recent personal experience from a trust we thought was more flexible. And what you brought to my attention, the fairly recent court-reversed transfer, originally from GET to Grandview. It appears the transfer was void, due to the Grandview being a purpose trust, so had no direct human beneficiaries. Even though this transfer, was reported as the settlers’ intentions The GRT transfer provision only allowed transfers to a Trust, that had human beneficiaries.