Complete the form below to ask us a question or make an enquiry. We’ll get back to you via phone or email as soon as possible.

Insights

Contentious Probate and Discretionary Trusts: Does the Term “Children” Refer to Biological Children Only?

Posted on 22nd August 2024 in Dispute Resolution

Posted by

Abigail Francis

Paralegal
Contentious Probate and Discretionary Trusts: Does the Term “Children” Refer to Biological Children Only?

What is a discretionary trust?

A discretionary trust is a trust set up by a person (the Settlor) with the intention of giving the appointed trustees the discretion to decide how to distribute their money or assets to named beneficiaries or an identifiable class of beneficiaries.

In a discretionary trust, the trustees have control as to how much or what each beneficiary is to receive and when (if anything). These are particularly useful when the Settlor is unsure how they wish to distribute their estate or want to include future beneficiaries such as any future children in a class of beneficiaries.

By passing control to the trustees, the Settlor has flexibility over who will benefit from the trust as well as some protection where circumstances have changed. With this set up, the Settlor can provide guidance to the trustees who will consider all of the circumstances when making decisions in relation to the trust.

Marcus v Marcus: The Facts

A recent example of a discretionary trust that turned contentious is that of Marcus v Marcus.

In this case, the owner of a family toy business, Mr Marcus (“SM”), passed away in 2020 leaving a multimillion estate.

Prior to his passing, in 2003 SM executed a discretionary trust in favour of his “children and any remoter issue” including their spouses. At the time of execution, it was believed that SM had two biological sons, Edward (“EM”) and Jonathan (“JM”).

In 2010 SM’s wife, Patricia, approached EM with the news that his biological father was not SM as he had always believed and instead, the truth was that he was conceived with another man whilst SM was away for three weeks.

At the time that SM passed away, he still believed that both EM and JM were his biological children and was never told of Patricia’s claims.

Marcus v Marcus: The Issue of Paternity

In light of the claims by Patricia, the Court had to consider whether EM was included in the class of beneficiaries identified by SM in the trust. To do this, the Court considered the issue of paternity and whether EM was SM’s biological son.

The presumption, as cited by the Court, is that a child born during a marriage is a child of the husband. It is therefore presumed that EM was the biological child of SM unless proven otherwise. In this case, EM’s position was supported by the fact that SM was named as his father on his birth certificate.

In an attempt to disprove this, Patricia served witness evidence to confirm that she had a relationship with somebody else at the time EM was conceived. Patricia’s witness evidence deemed it impossible for SM to be the biological father of EM as a result of him being out of town.

In addition to Patricia’s witness evidence, DNA tests were conducted and concluded that EM and JM were more likely than not half-blood siblings, however, it cannot be determined which of them was likely to be the biological child of SM.

After considering the evidence, the Court held that on the balance of probabilities, SM was unlikely to be EM’s biological father.

Marcus v Marcus: The Issue of Construction

Once it was established that EM was unlikely to be SM’s biological son, the Court considered the meaning of the word “children” in the context of the discretionary trust created by SM and whether the class of beneficiaries extended to stepchildren or children of the family.

The Court considered the intention of SM at the time of execution by reference to that of a reasonable person having all relevant background knowledge to them at the time and their understanding of the language used.

The Court held that although the trust did not name EM and JM as beneficiaries specifically, at the time of execution SM believed that the word “children” would include them within the class of beneficiaries and that his way of drafting was common to allow for flexibility.

The Court confirmed that the term “children” should be given its technical meaning unless something in the context suggests another meaning was intended. In this case, the question was whether the Court could move away from the natural meaning of the word “children” in the circumstances.

Marcus v Marcus: The Outcome

It was held that the circumstances of the case pointed overwhelmingly in favour of a wider meaning of the word “children” to include both EM and JM.

Conclusion

This case is an example of the flexibility of discretionary trusts and the Court’s interpretation of drafting methods where matters become contentious. In this case, the Court was able to use its discretion to extend the meaning of the word “children” to include stepchildren and children of the family to ensure EM was within the class of beneficiaries identified. This was done on the basis that the Court considered there was sufficient evidence to show that this was SM’s intention at the time that the trust was drafted.

How Tozers can help

If you require advice as to the drafting or interpretation of a disputed trust, please give us a call to discuss ways in which we can help. 

Contact our legal experts

Company & Industry

Related Insights

Insights

Who Inherits When There Is No Will? Understanding the Intestacy Rules

Posted on 02nd December 2024 in Dispute Resolution

The Intestacy Rules apply to both spouses and civil partners in the same way and they are top priority. However, where a marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved by a legally recognised decree or there is ongoing judicial separation, the surviving spouse/civil partner is no longer entitled to inherit under the Intestacy Rules.

Posted by

Martin Laver

Partner and Solicitor
Insights

Police Force Issued with a £750,000 Penalty Notice by the ICO for an Unprecedented and Industrial Scale Data Breach

Posted on 09th October 2024 in Dispute Resolution, Data Protection

In a recent case involving the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, the ICO issued a penalty notice due to non-compliance with UK GDPR obligations. The incident stemmed from a data breach that occurred during a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response. While FOIA requests are typically limited to public authorities, the lessons from this case are relevant to all businesses handling personal data. Read our latest insight for a breakdown of the key points.

Posted by

Jessica Whittick

Solicitor