-
02-05-2021, 12:05 PM
#241
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
The current ownership of an asett does not benefit a beneficiary until the title or ownership passes; which may never happen for various reasons, like predeceasing the settlor, or discovering previously unknown debt, or some similar claim. Try mortgaging a property you don't own but are a beneficiary to and the bank will soon show you the door. Until the estate is settled the trust may not be worth any more than an undrawn lotto ticket.
Sure the beneficiary may or may not get eventually the legal title to the property when the trust assets are finally distributed. However it does not affect their current position of having a beneficial interest in the property. The property’s legal ownership is held on behalf of the beneficiaries.
-
02-05-2021, 01:18 PM
#242
Originally Posted by Bjauck
Sure the beneficiary may or may not get eventually the legal title to the property when the trust assets are finally distributed. However it does not affect their current position of having a beneficial interest in the property. The property’s legal ownership is held on behalf of the beneficiaries.
How on earth can you be required to list a beneficial interest? It may be a complete unknown. Its very existence may not even be known. And certainly its value cannot be known, or even estimated. Not that it applies to Seymour's case. I understand he did list it as an interest.
Last edited by fungus pudding; 02-05-2021 at 01:23 PM.
-
02-05-2021, 01:45 PM
#243
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
How on earth can you be required to list a beneficial interest? It may be a complete unknown. Its very existence may not even be known. And certainly its value cannot be known, or even estimated. Not that it applies to Seymour's case. I understand he did list it as an interest.
I did not understand your point.
It is the interest that is important and not the value. It is his current interests (as a beneficiary) in the real estate properties (owned in two of the three trusts, his interests in which he had already declared) which was what he had overlooked. He has now rectified his mistake.
-
02-05-2021, 02:25 PM
#244
Originally Posted by Bjauck
I did not understand your point.
It is the interest that is important and not the value. It is his current interests (as a beneficiary) in the real estate properties (owned in two of the three trusts, his interests in which he had already declared) which was what he had overlooked. He has now rectified his mistake.
Fantastic. I'm so pleased.
-
02-05-2021, 04:44 PM
#245
Originally Posted by Aaron
In theory once a kid reaches 18 there is no reason why they can't approach the trustees and ask for the transfer of the assets and control to pass to them as they are now capable of managing the assets in their own interests.
Because it doesn't happen it doesn't mean it won't in the future. I imagine the legal cost to challenge trustees will ensure nothing changes.
Would you please try that and let us know how you get on. My bet after the failed challenge you would not be a beneficiary. But please give it a try for our amusement.
-
03-05-2021, 09:59 AM
#246
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
Fantastic. I'm so pleased.
I agree. It is good for a transparent democracy for full disclosure of our legislators interests. Overall, I doubt if this incident will be seen in a negative light by his supporters, or targeted support base.
-
03-06-2021, 09:48 AM
#247
When is seymours euthanasia policy going to be implemented?
I would prefer Medsafe to deregulate medicines at the point a person considers euthanasia to be a viable option for them.
Last edited by Panda-NZ-; 29-09-2021 at 06:21 PM.
-
15-06-2021, 02:40 PM
#248
Did dave seymour vote to remove the british flag in the referendum?
If so another hyprocriticial stance from him but not surprising, add it to the extensive list.
-
29-09-2021, 04:33 PM
#249
Seymour's questions in the House today so stupid, he invites PM to make him look like a fool, which after asking if she really needs to answer, she does.
-
29-09-2021, 08:47 PM
#250
Originally Posted by Blue Skies
Seymour's questions in the House today so stupid, he invites PM to make him look like a fool, which after asking if she really needs to answer, she does.
Actually it’s the other way round - he made Cindy looked dumb because she could not spin her way out of the question. Which she is of course (dumb) - eg. working in a fish & chips shop being the grand sum total of her business and real world experience.
No wonder she is all spin and no delivery. Kiwibuild or child poverty eradication, anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seymour asked: "Has the Prime Minister only just realised that there are new variants of COVID, and if not, why is she so unprepared for them?"
"Mr Speaker, do I even have to answer that?"
House Speaker Trevor Mallard said he could have ruled out Seymour's remarks as ironic, but he settled on Ardern being "absolutely capable of answering".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last edited by Balance; 29-09-2021 at 09:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks