current
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
So, in other words we are ZEROed OUT and all this time has been wasted. No side-saddle agreement that pays later just a big ZERO?
.,,
Hey Fred, I figured this would wake you up so good to hear you did not get run over by that gust of wind you recently had in SWF.
I have never said BARD is my information rather I recently posted that our new form and improved cancer worldwide is BARD and others similar.
…
HEY FRED, BARD SEEMS TO KNOW MORE ABOUT UWBKQ THAN YOU
When will the Colorado Bankruptcy Court make distributions to the former (UWBKQ) common stock holders concerning the former United Western Bank?
View other drafts
_____________________________________________
The Colorado Bankruptcy Court has not yet announced a date for the distribution of funds to the former (UWBKQ) common stock holders concerning the former United Western Bank. The court is currently in the process of reviewing the claims of creditors and determining the amount of funds available for distribution. Once the court has completed this process, it will issue an order setting a date for the distribution of funds.
According to the most recent update from the court, the review of claims is expected to be completed in early 2024. However, the court has warned that this is just an estimate and the actual date for the distribution of funds could be later.
The former United Western Bank was a savings and loan association that was headquartered in Colorado. The bank was closed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 2009. The FDIC then appointed a trustee to oversee the liquidation of the bank's assets.
The distribution of funds to the former common stock holders of United Western Bank is a complex process that involves a number of factors, including the amount of assets available for distribution, the number of creditors with claims, and the priority of those claims. The court will need to carefully consider all of these factors before issuing an order setting a date for the distribution of funds.
I will keep an eye on the court's website and update you if there are any new developments.
...
MEET THE NEW AND IMPROVED CANCER OF THE WORLD...BARD AND OTHERS
...
BARD SAYS DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SAFE HARBOR WILL START IN EARLY YEAR 2024!
When will Safe Harbor monies be released that involved the former WaMu Estate?
View other drafts
Safe Harbor monies that involved the former WaMu Estate are expected to be released in early 2024. The release is subject to a number of conditions, including the completion of a review by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the satisfaction of certain other requirements.
The former WaMu Estate is the residual interest in the assets of Washington Mutual Bank, which was acquired by JPMorgan Chase in 2008. The Safe Harbor program was created to provide a mechanism for the orderly release of funds to creditors of failed financial institutions.
The release of Safe Harbor monies is a complex process that involves a number of parties, including the FDIC, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and the creditors of the failed institution. The FDIC is currently in the process of reviewing the former WaMu Estate and is expected to issue a report on its findings in early 2024. Once the report is issued, the FDIC will determine whether the conditions for the release of Safe Harbor monies have been met.
,,,
newflow, you said the following,
_________________________________________________________
Its not,it has been.The filed the certificate of cancellation effective Dec 31,2021 and then continued winding up.
__________________________________________________________
This is exactly correct and WMILT also said at the time of this certificate of cancelation that there would be no further updates in terms of the final winding-up. This sounds like tons of room for more corruption UNLESS this is where the real action is taking place.
...
Excellent point about being abandoned which means we will be handled separately and possibly POST bk closeout!
…
Hmm, Fred said earlier CUSSIPs Will de removed and insinuated nothing more but he has said nothing more
Maybe he has been wrong alll this time and will disappear
Look at his earlier post that follows
——————————————
...DIRECT PATH of a Cat. 4 HURRICANE...........uwbi cusips cancelled..........pile of other problems...........yawn,,,,,,,,,,,,,yawn.................EXPLOSIVE FART.................go away..................find some other lackey DORK to leach off of............WE'RE CLOSED.............WENT BROKE.............
…
Also, one would make sure the addresses are correct before the final closeout and it would also seem this is very important verification before they send out any POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTIONS
...
If the document was posted relating to former UWBKQ it appears this Dude with all of these titles regarding a fiduciary status would seem to me there must be a serious amount of cash/assets left to distribute otherwise, why would this Fiduciary even be involved?
...
Thanks Iprelude for the update.
Interesting document number 755 filed for UWBKQ concerning change of address.
Seems puzzling to me Wells Fargo would have a change of address but further interesting is all of the following.
----------------------------
Filed by Keith Miles Aurzada on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, Institutional Trustee and Guarantee Trustee.
…
Newflow, just remember subject matter expert and Certified Banker poster, CBA09 always told us we MAY have to wait for the FDIC to resolve the Receivership BEFORE distributions would start. It looks like he may be correct.
…
Good points newflow. OBVIOUSLY, the powers-that-be have not released or signed off on the final resolution and FINAL BILL BEING OWED and once they do we should be in very, very high cotton!
...
CWG, I understand what you are saying but the assets that I am referring to are regarding Justin Nelson's multiple comments in reference to assets that were Safe Harbor protected and could not be legally discussed in the active bk cases. I could be wrong about the amount but he was referring to a multitude of billions and I do not believe this is the same train of thought as you discuss.
...
Milk Duds, you said the following.
_____________________________________________
If the judge thought it was wrong, she would have no problem correcting a serious error like that.
_____________________________________________
I believe you are completely wrong concerning this Judge. If what we know about assets is accurate we believe we are because Justin Nelton tried to enter 24B in assets and the Judge warned that if he tried this one more time he would be sanctioned, so the assets were undoubtedly Safe Harbor protected. So, there is no way this Judge would have said anything if at the time those assets for example had anything to do with WMI such as in a DST. This Judge did NOT want anyone to believe there were assets associated with these bk cases as the total fraud would have been exposed.
...
Bbanbob, you said the following.
————————————-
SHe didn't say UP TO A POINT BUT PARTICIPATE
————————————
In my view, you are spot-on correct. The Delaware court has spoken and even though there could not be safe Harbor assets entered into the active bk court cases, the court decisions on ownership which is 75/25 will carry through to Safe Harbor assets, otherwise there would be dual ownership for same assets and that will never happen in a Delaware Bk cases or cases period!
…
CORRECT...I believe like a few others that WMI is considered dormant but alive and will transition when the powers-that-be decide it is time so we wait for time to pass and filings to show us the way forward.
...
AZC, you said the following.
__________________________________________
NO' 75/25, ... NO' Secret DSTs
__________________________________________
Since you ignore the court filings referencing the (OC) Ownership Change, the court canceled common and preferred shares and prospectuses along with ALL associate documents, Safe Harbor monies as well as non-disclosed sums in three jumbo Wells Fargo accounts, court-approved 75/25, the court-approved dismantling of all sacred Delaware (APR) ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE, how do you explain NOT having a dual set of former Estate ownership rights/claims and/or shares due to OC on March 19, 2012.
***OR IN OTHER WORDS EXPLAIN WHO YOUR TOTALLY SECRET XXXX MEANS AND/OR REFERS TO IN TOTALITY***
Answer directly with no mumbo-jumbo or ignore in totality when you cannot clearly answer.
,,,
WMI DST = 75/25 to all who signed timely releases by 3/2012 in my view among another one or two sources of distributions
…
BBANBOB, just like we have said for a very long time the reason Bray cannot sell Xome is because COOP does NOT own Xome in its entirety. Why in the world would a CEO like Bray discuss selling Xome for two years when he does not have the right to sell XOME? This is unless ALL parties are in agreement to sell and Obviously they ARE NOT ALL on the same page to sell at least during these two years that Bray was promoting the selling of Xome.
So NOW who is the OTHER OWNER OF XOME? I CAN NOT PROVE IT YET, BUT I WOULD CONJETURE that the investors who signed a timely release by 3/2012 are the owners THROUGH a DST where we are beneficial owners and will be receiving distributions for our beneficial recipient ownership rights at some point in the relative near future.
JUST REMEMBER WHAT SOME OF us HAVE ALWAYS SAID and that is a DST WILL PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN OUR POTENTIAL FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS
...
It was always JPM’s responsibility from Amended POR 7 forward but just do not know if and when they pay
…
Been that way for years
Ron, you gave the following hint.
MBS?
Hint; WMIIC
——————————————
Better hint: WMI DST
…
Stox, remember what I have said for years about a (DST) Delaware Statutory Trust in that this will play a vital role in our future distributions.
Also remember Kosturos was originally appointed to the DST Trustee role and signed by the court when Amended POR 7 was officially signed on 2/23/2012.
With so many eyes on this including the UWs, I highly doubt they want to get caught doing anything seriously nefarious as Walrath and the Delaware court are still the official fiduciary over this case
I feel more than confident we will be seeing distributions but Libor may have to be settled first so the criminals can take 15B and pay tranche five off which are the Texas Insurance Litigators who hold the vast majority of the five flavors of Bonds.
This way they can hide the real facts of the origination of the monies for distributions making these no cases look officially legitimate especially for historical reasons as you can not have distributions going to Tranche six which is equity before Tranche five which are the (SD) Subordinated Debt and/or commonly called Bonds.
So yes, the Criminals in charge are holding our monies until they have other monies they can use to pay distributions then claim it is from Libor.
Then maybe they quietly release our Safe Harbor monies. They need a very good reason for distributions before releasing our Safe Harbor monies in order to hide the original reasons for our distributions so settling Libor first makes sense.
This is my view so only time passing and filings will show us the way forward.
…
Thanks Newflow. What is CES?
Bbanbob, I can assure you one FACT, if in a war with the enemy, people of these actions would be the last one I would trust.
….
AZC is the poster that originally promoted that $50.00 dollar crap...direct your fact-finding toward him and see if he will apologize to the ones he purposely misguided for self-grandeur purposes.
...
So I guess we wait for Libor to close in order to resolve the Receivership. Most likely will not terminate the bk cases until this happens so we wait another year or two
Hey fred, now that you have that out of your system, what kind of thoughts do you have today? There is just no way they would have kept this nonsense going for all of these years with this little bitty bank if there was truly nothing there and/or coming back in my view.
Remember, this little bitty bank and WaMu and the exact same scenario in principle and this is the Perps got caught doing the dirty-illegally seizing a solvent bank and MUST use other people's money to make restitution as this is generally their motto.
Still, believe as I always have for years there is a bare minimum of four to six per share returning but more like eight to ten after all this time.
Time passing and filings will show us the way forward.
...
Ok, all done, over no partying. Find a tall building and jump. Could be exciting for a while
No soup for ANYONE…. By
..,
If nothing coming back, this would have been closed long ago in my view. No reason for posturing all these years.
…
Fred, notice the date I posted my response since you were obviously not following.
Large Green
Member Level
Re: Nightdaytrader post# 712981
Thursday, 07/27/2023 7:05:56 PM
NDT, what I learned had to do with Put and Straddle Options. There was a large cash outlay for put Options at the $35.00 level with expiration on June 20, 2023, and it appeared these investor (s) were in the know to bet around a million dollars basically saying the price of COOP would decline from the $43.00 level to lower than $45.00 to be in the money before expiration.
It would seem these investor (s) would have some sort of inside information to bet this kind of money for such a short timeframe.
A short time before the aforementioned Options expired, it appeared to be the same investor (s) made another short-term bet with a Straddle Option (win bet on both ends) at a $50.00 price with expiration on 7/21/2023, so the price of COOP would have had to be above or below the $50.00 price substantially to win this bet and it appeared they narrowly won this bet if in fact the same investors but probably did not win enough to offset the previous Put Option losses, again if same investors.
Again, it would have seemed these people would have been armed with some sort of inside information to bet this kind of money for such a short time frame.
At this point, we move on but sure looks like something is definitely going on with COOP by allowing the price to move as much as it has in such a short time frame.
Now we may have to wait until the powers-that-be sign releases and officially and formally release the Receivership and/or accounts as one of our very astute posters, CBA09 told us back in mid-year 2017 before he mysteriously disappeared.
…
PART ONE: UNDERSTANDING WHAT COOP'S Chris Marshall MEANT WHEN HE DISCUSSED COOP WILL COME INTO 50M PLUS LATER IN YEAR 2023 WHEN COLLAPSING A TRUST IS FINALIZED
PART ONE: Understanding and Applying the Rule to Collapsing a Trust
Barford v Street
There is tension between the two sometimes conflicting goals of protecting testamentary freedom and permitting sui juris beneficiaries to enjoy their property without undue restrictions. Testamentary freedom is a hallmark of the common law in democratic societies that support the rule of law and property rights generally. Accordingly, testators are, for the most part, legally entitled to dispose of assets as he or she wishes. Over time, through both common law and statute absolute testamentary freedom has been circumscribed where: (1) dependants have been inadequately provided for; (2) a beneficiary is an ‘unworthy heir’ such as someone who had murdered the testator or a group that would benefit from the assets in a manner that is contrary to the Criminal Code (terrorist entities, for example); and (3) there are provisions in a Will that violate public policy. The focus of this paper is to analyze a fourth situation where courts collapse trusts when the terms postpone entitlement to some arbitrary time notwithstanding that the beneficiary is an adult with the legal capacity to manage his/her affairs. This is what happened in Saunders v. Vautier.3
The rule in Saunders v Vautier though is unique, in the sense that on its face this blunt ‘trust busting’ doctrine permits beneficiaries of a trust to depart from a testator’s/ settlor’s original and explicit intentions. This differs from other instances where the court’s interference in the testator’s or settlor’s intention is rooted in society’s goal to protect vulnerable parties or larger public policy concerns. Under the Family Law Act4 the statute restricts testamentary freedom to protect spouses5, under the Succession Law Reform Act6 the law circumscribes testamentary freedom to protect dependants7. In Saunders v Vautier the common law has prioritized the right of the ultimate beneficiary’s enjoyment of property over the will-maker’s testamentary freedom. To further that end the courts allow beneficiaries to modify or collapse the trust, regardless of the wishes of the testator or settlor.
The Saunders v Vautier principle is similar to what has been referred to as the Barford v Street principle. Barford provides that where a testator gives to a beneficiary a life interest together with a power to appoint how the remainder of the trust will be dealt with after that beneficiary’s death (by deed or will), the beneficiary is entitled to exercise his or her general power of appointment in favour of themselves, thereby becoming the owner of the entire beneficial interest in the trust.This paper will review the common law rules and interplay between Saunders v Vautier and Barford v Street, the rationale behind the doctrines (as compared to the foundational principle of testamentary freedom) and how the doctrines have been judicially considered and expanded over time.
Saunders v Vautier
In Saunders v. Vautier, a testator bequeathed some stock in the East India Company to his great nephew, Daniel Vautier, via a trust where upon attaining the age of 25 years, Vautier would be entitled to receive absolutely as his own property the principal of such stock plus the accumulated interest and dividends.
The testator died in 1832, and in 1841, Daniel Vautier turned 21, the age of majority. He then petitioned the Court to have the trustees transfer the stock to him immediately as being his own property. He submitted that he was about to be married and needed money to set himself up in business.
Lord Cottenham, L.C., ruled that the gift vested upon the testator’s death and not when Daniel Vautier reached age twenty-five and that consequently since Daniel was now “of age” (sui juris) he was entitled to call for immediate possession of the stock and the accumulated income as his own property.
Despite the explicit direction in the Will that he was not to receive the corpus of the gift until age 25, Vautier was successful in terminating the trust, and he acquired the stock four years sooner than the testator had intended.
The Court’s rationale in Saunders was later explained by Sir Page-Wood, V.C., in the case of Gosling v Gosling:8
The principles of this Court has always been to recognize the right of all persons who attain the age of twenty-one to enter upon the absolute use and enjoyment of the property given to them by a will, notwithstanding any directions by the testator to the effect that they are not to enjoy it until a later age – unless, during the interval, the property is given for the benefit of another. If the property is once theirs, it is useless for the testator to attempt to impose any fetter upon their enjoyment of it in full so soon as they attain twenty-one. And upon that principle, unless there is in the will, or in some codicil to it, a clear indication of an intention on the part of the testator, not only that his devisees are not to have the enjoyment of the property he has devised to them until they attain twenty-five, but that some other person is to have that enjoyment – or unless the property is so clearly taken away from the devisees up to the time of their attaining twenty-five as to induce the Court to hold that, as to the previous rents and profits, there has been an intestacy – the Court does not hesitate to strike out of the will any direction that the devisees shall not enjoy it in full until they attain the age of twenty-five years.
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2006 succinctly summarized the common law rule in Saunders v Vautier as follows:9
21 The common law rule in Saunders v. Vautier can be concisely stated as allowing beneficiaries of a trust to depart from the settlor’s original intentions provided that they are of full legal capacity and are together entitled to all the rights of beneficial ownership in the trust property…
The merits of the so-called Saunders v Vautier rule has been debated since its formation. According to D. W. M. Waters, M. R. Gillen and L. D. Smith, eds., Waters’ Law of Trusts in Canada (3rd ed. 2005), at p. 1175, the rule originated as an implicit understanding that the significance of property lay in the right of enjoyment. The idea was that, since the beneficiaries of a trust would eventually receive the property, they should decide how they intended to enjoy it. If that is truly the principal upon with Saunders v Vautier is based then it is logical that any time arbitrary restrictions to the right of enjoyment exist a court has jurisdiction to ignore those restrictions.
On the other hand, some see it as indefensible attack on testamentary freedom. There may be (and often are) good reasons why a testator would not want a beneficiary (or beneficiaries) to obtain the benefits of his or her gift until a certain age. To apply the rule and extinguish the trust would be a clear violation of the testator’s wishes for no persuasive or significant public policy reason.
In terms of the rule’s application in Canada, courts have indeed applied the principle to permit a beneficiary to effectively ignore and displace the testator or settlor’s intentions by varying the terms of the trust. However, there are limitations.
For example, in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., 2019 SCC 4, the Supreme Court confirmed what was generally understood to be the case that a beneficiary of a “Henson trust” – that is, a trust settled for the benefit of a person with disabilities who rely on publicly funded social assistance benefits – could not invoke the principle in Saunders v Vautier. While the Court considered another issue in the appeal,10the Supreme Court did note that because the person with disabilities has no enforceable right to receive any property from the trustee of a Henson trust unless and until the trustee exercises his or her discretion in that person’s favour, the interest he or she has therein is not generally considered an “asset”, the beneficiary cannot compel the trustee to make payments to him or her, and therefore he or she is prevented from unilaterally collapsing the trust under the rule in Saunders v Vautier.
In the following Canadian cases the Courts have found the Saunders v Vautier rule not to be applicable. In Buschau v. Rogers Communications Inc., [2006] 1 SCR 973, the Supreme Court declined to introduce the rule into the private pension system as that would disrupt the fair and delicate balance between the interests of the employer and employees, and would be contrary to the legislative objective of encouraging the establishment and maintenance of private pension plans.
More recently, in Khavari v Mizrahi, 2016 ONSC 101, Justice H.J. Wilton-Siegel presided over a complex motion to determine, among other things, if the rule in Saunders v Vautier was applicable. The litigation originally concerned two real estate development projects, consisting of two mid-rise, luxury condominium developments at 133 Hazelton Avenue and 181 Davenport Road. The parties incorporated certain companies to hold legal title to the properties upon which the developments were built as bare trustees for other entities, and signed a document styled “Trust Agreement” reflecting the transfer of shares. Various addendums to the trust agreement were subsequently signed.
There were two principal issues on the motion – whether the trust agreement created a trust, and if so, whether the applicant was entitled to the return of the shares based on the application of the Saunders v Vautier principle.
Among many other reasons, Justice Wilton-Siegel noted that the enforcement or rights in respect of a trust, including the invocation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier, engages the equitable jurisdiction of the Court. He therefore ruled that to the extent that the party was otherwise entitled to an order under Saunders, the Court would decline to exercise its discretion to apply the rule where it would be unconscionable:
[69] There is no doubt that a return of the Shares to Khash would create events of default under such loan agreements. The potential consequences for other loan agreements to which MEI or Mizrahi is a party cannot be assessed on this motion. Moreover, the effect of an order granting the relief sought by Khash would be to allow Khash to resile from the Agreement after MEI and Mizrahi have relied on the existence of the Agreement in their dealings with the lenders to the Developments, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of Khash. Given the foregoing circumstances, such a result would, in my view, be unconscionable.
This case raises an interesting issue of whether the Court is obliged to collapse the trust if the conditions precedent are met (namely, the beneficiary or beneficiaries are the age of majority, all consent to collapse the trust and no one is under any disability). The decision appears to suggest that the Courts nevertheless have the inherent jurisdiction – and the discretion – to make sure collapsing the trust would be equitable, and the courts may consider external factors such as the impact on other non-parties.
As one author herein noted in a prior case comment, Justice Himel in the case of Stoor v Stoor Estate declined to apply the rule in Saunders v Vautier in a scenario where the testator included a “gift-over” provision. She noted at paragraph 50 and 51 as follows:
“50 The application of the rule in Saunders v. Vautier has been wide, but not unlimited. For example, in Rogers Communications, supra, the majority of the Supreme Court held that in the context of a statutorily regulated pension plan, the rule in Saunders v. Vautier had no application (at para. 33).
51 Counsel have not referred me to any case, nor have I been able to find one, in which the rule in Saunders v. Vautier was held to apply in a situation like that at issue here, that is, where there is an absolute discretionary trust over the income and capital to a beneficiary for life, with a gift over of the remainder. That gift over is clearly intended to support the testator’s intent to prevent the interest in the income and capital from vesting in the beneficiary. However, as a result of the failure of the gift over of the residue, the beneficiary applies to have the intestacy determined immediately, before the expiration of the life interest, thereby making him the sole potential beneficiary of any trust property.”
Justice Himel did not find it appropriate to expand the rule to include situations with gift-over provisions.
A similar result is found in N-Krypt International Corp. v. LeVasseur, 2018 BCCA 20, where the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently declined to apply the rule.
In N-Krypt, the respondent N-Krypt International Corp. (“N-Krypt”) purchased shares in a company controlled by the appellant Thierry LeVasseur. A term of their agreement required N-Krypt to put its shares into a voting trust with Mr. LeVasseur as trustee. When the relationship between the parties broke down, N-Krypt, relying on trust law, petitioned for relief including disclosure of company information, return of its shares or replacement of Mr. LeVasseur as trustee. Mr. LeVasseur opposed the relief sought on the basis that it was contrary to the parties’ agreement. The hearing judge declined to terminate the trust or appoint a new trustee, but ordered Mr. LeVasseur as trustee to provide N-Krypt with extensive information relating to the shares, subject to specific limitations set out in the subscription agreement. The appeal and cross appeal largely turn on whether trust law prevails over the terms of the contract.
N-Krypt submitted that since the Voting Trust Agreement stated unequivocally that N-Krypt is the sole beneficial owner of the shares and is entitled to their return when the term of the trust expires, the rule in Saunders v Vautier governed and N-Krypt could rightfully demand the return of its shares.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the rule in Saunders was inapplicable in such circumstances. N-Krypt contractually bound itself to give the trustee the right to vote the shares for ten years as a condition to obtaining the shares. As a result, N-Krypt was not deemed to be solely entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of the property during the term of the trust — the voting rights which form part of the bundle of property rights attaching to the shares are to be “enjoyed” by Cirius, and voted by its CEO as trustee and in Cirius’s interests. It follows that the original hearing judge was correct in concluding that:
[33] … the rule is not a proper means of escaping the overall contractual terms under which the trust property is held. I should say in this regard that I do not think it is possible to analyze the voting trust and subscriber agreements separately in terms of the restrictions they impose on N-Krypt’s ability to collapse the trust, as its counsel submits. The subscriber agreement provides for the shares to be delivered to Mr. LeVasseur in trust for NKrypt and requires N-Krypt to enter into the voting trust agreement. Together the agreements form the overall trust arrangement and define the rights and obligations agreed to under it-.
Barford v Street
Another similar principle that has evolved over time is the rule articulated in Barford v Street, a case that predates Saunders by approximately 30 years. In many ways, the Saunders v Vautier rule is an expansion of the original Barford principle.
Justice Himel in Stoor v. Stoor Estate, 2014 ONSC 5684, noted that the Saunders principle has
“has even been applied to a situation in which the beneficiary has a life interest with a general power of appointment over the residue, by deed or by will, with a gift over in failure of appointment. The beneficiary can then exercise that power of appointment in favour of herself, and thereby become owner of the entirety of the beneficial interest….This application of the Saunders v. Vautier rule is sometimes referred to as the rule in Barford v Street (1809), 16 Ves. 135, after the case in which it was first applied…”
In Barford, the Court had to consider a will by which the residue of the testator’s estate were given and devised to a trustee to pay expenses to Ms. Barford during her lifetime and then immediately after she passed away, the residue was to be conveyed to any such person as Ms. Barford appointed (by deed or will). Brilliantly, Ms. Barford executed a deed poll directing the trustee to convey and assign all of the estate to herself. The Court effectively ruled that where a testator gives to the beneficiary a life interest together with a power to appoint by deed or will, or by deed alone, the beneficiary can appoint to himself.
One leading Canadian case applying the Barford rule is the Supreme Court decision in Re Mewburn, 1938 CanLII 25 (SCC). In that case the testator provided that ½ of the residue of his estate would be invested in trust to pay the income to the testator’s daughter during her lifetime “and upon her death said share to go and be disposed of as she may by deed or will appoint…” The Supreme Court ruled that the daughter could exercise her power of appointment by deed in her own favour so as to vest in her immediately her share of the residue of the estate and so as to entitle her to have it transferred to her immediately. The court said:
“In the present case, I conclude that the daughter’s life interest, coupled with a power to appoint the corpus by deed, enables her to appoint to anyone, including herself. The testator’s manifest intention is contrary to the authority he conferred upon her. By giving his daughter a power to appoint by will only, he could have ensured that his wishes should be respected.”
The Barford principle was also applied in other Canadian appellate cases in the early 20th Century, including in Templeton v. Royal Trust Company, [1936] 3 D.L.R. 782, where the majority of the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that notwithstanding the clear intention of the testator that only on the death of the life tenant should the corpus be distributed as he might direct, that as the power of appointment was exercisable by deed the life tenant could exercise it in that manner in his own favour so as to entitle him to have the corpus transferred by the trustee of the testator’s will to him immediately.
Similarly, in Robinson v. Royal Trust Co., [1939] S.C.R. 75, a daughter had a life interest only in the income with the provision that “upon her death said share to go and be disposed of as she may by deed or will appoint”. The specific question that the Supreme Court asked itself was whether Ms. Robinson can exercise the power of appointment vested in her by the said will, by deed in her own favour so as to vest in her immediately her share of the residue of the said estate and so as to entitle her to have the same transferred to her immediately?
The Supreme Court in Robinson concluded that:
In the present case, I conclude that the daughter’s life interest, coupled with a power to appoint the corpus by deed, enables her so to appoint to anyone, including herself. The testator’s manifest intention is contrary to the authority he conferred upon her. By giving his daughter a power to appoint by will only, he could have ensured that his wishes should be respected. If it be urged that in that event she would be unable to appoint by deed the corpus or part of it so as to assist a child, the same argument now advanced as to why she should not be authorized to deprive herself of the income, would apply. On principle as well as upon a consideration of the authorities referred to, she is able to exercise the power and disregard the testator’s wishes.
More recently, in Guest v. Lott, 2013 ONSC 7781, the general principle articulated in Barford was upheld. Although not explicitly referred to as the Barford v Street rule, Justice Beaudoin ruled that the beneficiary of the life interest had a power to appoint the remainder by will, and was properly able to appoint herself.
[33] I conclude that the facts of the Robinson decision are nearly identical to those at hand. In this case, however, Barbara Jane Guest has more than a life interest. Barbara Jane Guest takes absolutely, 21 years after the death of the testator, if she survives. Nothing turns on the fact that she is not entitled to all of the income during that period of time. By conferring on his daughters a power to appoint by deed, the general principle of law found in Jarman, A Treatise in Wills, applies. No other person can or will benefit from the residue of the Jane Fund under the terms of the Limited Property Will of Arthur Ronald Guest.
[34] While this result may allow the beneficiaries to override the intentions of the testator, I conclude that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier applies and that Barbara Jane Guest is entitled to have the Trust distributed to her immediately…
Concluding Remarks
In essence, the principles articulated in the Saunders v. Vautier and Barford decisions are relied upon by Canadian courts to vary or collapse trusts in specific circumstances. Canadian courts do so notwithstanding that the collapsing or variance of those trusts goes against the express desire of the testator or settlor. However, the application of the principles is not without limits.
As the above-noted cases demonstrate, courts are reticent to vary or collapse a trust in situations where to do so would be unconscionable, lead to an inequitable result vis a vis others, or where there is even an inkling of possibility that someone other than the listed beneficiary would have some type of entitlement.
As the population continues to age, and as business structures, wills and trusts increase in sophistication and apparent complexity, it is likely beneficiaries will seek to collapse or vary trusts that restricts that absolute and immediate entitlement to property. Those litigants will rely and likely attempt to expand the application of e Saunders v. Vautier and Barford. Time will tell whether our courts are willing to expand or restrict the application of the doctrines created by these cases. It remains to be seen whether Courts will continue to apply the principles in a fairly restricted manner, or whether a more expansive approach will be taken.
Footnotes
(1809), 16 Ves. Jun. 135 (Eng. Ch. Div.). (Barford) ?
See Ontario — Estate Administration PROOF OF FACTS
Contributing Editor: Megan F. Connolly, Editor: Anne E.P. Armstrong where the author explains,
“Historically, a testator’s freedom to distribute her property as he or she chooses became deeply entrenched as a common law principle. This was, for example, stressed in Canada Trust Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (1990), 1990 CarswellOnt 486, 74 O.R. (2d) 481, at p. 495, citing Blathwayt v. Cawley, (1976) A.C. 397, (1975) 3 All E.R. 625 (U.K. H.L.): ?
(1841) EWHC Ch J82; (1841) Cr & Ph 240, (1841) 4 Beav 115 8; 41 ER 482 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. Available on line at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/1841/J82.html ?
Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”) ?
See sections 5-7 of the FLA. ?
Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (“SLRA”) ?
See Part V of the SLRA ?
(1859) 70 E.R. at 423. ?
Buschau v. Rogers Communication Inc., 2006 SCC 28 (CanLII), (2006) 1 S.C.R. 973, at para. 21 ?
At issue in the appeal was whether the interest that the appellant, S.A., has in a trust that was set up for her care and maintenance should be treated as an “asset”, which would negatively affect her eligibility to participate in a rental subsidy program offered by her landlord, the respondent, Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation. ?
PART TWO: COOP'S Chris Marshall Discussing 50M PLUS Returning to COOP Late Year 2023
***Thanks to BP, Plissken for sharing***
Chris Marshall: Thanks, Jay, and good morning, everyone. Hey, before I begin my comments, I also want to add my thanks to all my teammates at Mr. Cooper for their tremendous effort, which directly translated into the great results we had this quarter. I'm also extremely proud of being certified as a great place to work for the fifth year and also being named one of the best places to work in Texas.
Well, all these accolades, you can assume, things are going very well at Mr. Cooper right now. So, with that, let's turn to Slide 6 and talk about servicing, where we earned a record 182 million in pre-tax operating income. Based on these results, as well as the pending acquisitions we've announced, we're raising our full year of guidance for operating income by 17% from 600 million to 700 million.
And this doesn't include one-time gains from a trust collapse we're working on, which we expect to close in the second half, and which will contribute an additional $50 million or more. Now, this healthy contribution is exactly what you should expect from our balanced business model, as low CPR means limited activity for originations, but much stronger servicing earnings. And while many firms talk about having balance, you can see that our overall results are considerably more stable and consistent than our peers. However, while cyclical trends are favorable right now, the real story in servicing is our relentless focus on perfecting our platform, which is honestly like a religion for us.
______________________________________________________________________________
I believe this is worth discussing because we know that COOP has NEVER discussed a Material Event where COOP comes into 50M PLUS from a Collapsing Trust. Why has this NEVER been revealed before and why now sort of hidden and OBFUSUCATED within COOP'S 8K filing of second-quarter results?
This sounds like COOP may be a BENEFICIAL RECIPIENT of a POTENTIAL (DST) Delaware Statutory Trust that COULD and/or MAY BE related to the former WaMu Estate that COULD also include other BENEFICIAL RECIPIENTS such as those investors who signed timely releases by 3/2012. Why should there be ANY mystery involving the returns of monies to a publicly traded company such as COOP?
This should have been a separate 8K filing explaining all the details of this so-called collapsing trust, rather than COOP obfuscating this as part of an 8K filing discussing second quarter results via an 8K filing
...
BBANBOB, you ask poster conifer the following.
ARE YOU SUREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE it is COOP using assets to back the loans??
________________________________________________
I am pretty sure YOU and I know who backed WMIH/COOP back in the early years and I will give you the FIRST three letters and it has been laying dormant BUT alive and well. Here you go.
************************W**********************M*****************************I*******************
...
NDT, what I learned had to do with Put and Straddle Options. There was a large cash outlay for put Options at the $35.00 level with expiration on June 20, 2023, and it appeared these investor (s) were in the know to bet around a million dollars basically saying the price of COOP would decline from the $43.00 level to lower than $45.00 to be in the money before expiration.
It would seem these investor (s) would have some sort of inside information to bet this kind of money for such a short timeframe.
A short time before the aforementioned Options expired, it appeared to be the same investor (s) made another short-term bet with a Straddle Option (win bet on both ends) at a $50.00 price with expiration on 7/21/2023, so the price of COOP would have had to be above or below the $50.00 price substantially to win this bet and it appeared they narrowly won this bet if in fact the same investors but probably did not win enough to offset the previous Put Option losses, again if same investors.
Again, it would have seemed these people would have been armed with some sort of inside information to bet this kind of money for such a short time frame.
At this point, we move on but sure looks like something is definitely going on with COOP by allowing the price to move as much as it has in such a short time frame.
Now we may have to wait until the powers-that-be sign releases and officially and formally release the Receivership and/or accounts as one of our very astute posters, CBA09 told us back in mid-year 2017 before he mysteriously disappeared.
...
Coop now trading at $61.42 so, so, so something big is happening
Looking for another imminent 8K filing
I wrote the following post on 7/21/2023
NDT, just remember if nothing happens between now and 7/21, there is still FOUR business days coop has to file an 8K, especially if something will happen and they want to get it on the other side of their upcoming earnings report which is a possibility.
If nothing happens then we may have to wait until the powers-that-be sign releases and officially and formally release the Receivership as one of our very astute posters, CBA09 told us back in mid-year 2017 before he mysteriously disappeared.
…
…
jhd51, just know the Powers-That-Be could sign a release with the FDIC and others allowing distributions to flow ANY DAY, however, UNTIL the Receivership (R) is officially and totally resolved, this is far from over.
Also, as I have said numerous times, one of our very astute, subject matter experts who was a Certified Bank Auditor, poster, CBA09 advised back in mid-year 2017 that we may have to wait until the "R" has been resolved to receive our distributions.
Ultimately, until either distribution happens and/or the aforementioned has taken place, this is far from over.
Sit back and live and enjoy life as one day this will all be over with good, bad, or indifferent results but there is no way certain actions would have happened as recently as the UW's actions if there were NOT distributions coming back at a point in time!
...
Reiko, I am not special as I have not received any monies for my five flavors of SD and/or around 15B worth of Bonds.
AZC must rate higher than the UWs as they have not received any distributions either regarding these same Bonds.
Very sad for some that cannot figure something as simple as this out and realign their allegiances.
…
Boris, I do not see anywhere in these messages where it says anything about KENTUCKY STATUTES IN WHAT Tex wrote
…