what is all this about leaseholds?!

[nataliew]

Now I've got my wills from the ancestry probate calendar, I'm transcribing and updating my info.
But I'm intrigued by the 1877 will of Thomas Harris of Brixton - made about 6 months before he died of consumption (so I'm guessing he knew!)
Thomas spends his adult life as a 'clerk' for a cement company. The will describes his estate as being 'effects under £450' and underneath this is written 'leaseholds'.
The content of the will then leaves all his 'real and personal estate' to his wife 'absolutely'.
But then it follows "but as to the estates vested in me as trustee or by way of mortgage subject to the equities and trusts affecting the same respectively'. Does this mean he holds someone else's money in trust? Or that he had a mortgage? Is that usual? Can I found out more? Would this be why he made a will?
I wonder if it's relevant that the two occasions that the will names him, he is labelled as 'gentleman' (he is the son of a labourer - just ego or a real status?). The will is witnessed by a conveyancer and another 'gentleman'
Thanks!

[Mutley]

It seems to be a standard clause for protection.

If you copy and paste
but as to the estates vested in me as trustee or by way of mortgage subject to the equities and trusts affecting the same respectively
into google the first hit explains it, I think.... :smile5:

[tony vines]

Mutley has wisely suggested that the words you quoted are in effect what lawyers call "boilerplate text", that is to say standard words and phrases written into wills to cover a range of circumstances that may or may not apply in the specific case of the testator. That may well be the case and I am certainly not a lawyer, but there does seem to be some specific evidence of their need in this case by your finding the word "leasehold" and perhaps more directly by the words you quote starting "but as to the estates...". My guess would be that there was indeed leasehold property and that there was indeed a trust that the testator was trustee of which held property on behalf of beneficiaries of the trust.

You probably already know that it is usually possible to sell or pass on a lease. For example if you hold a property on lease for 25 years and at the time you die there are still 10 years unexpired the unexpired portion of that lease is part of your estate insofar as it has value or indeed even if it is a liability. So even when you are alive you can transfer or assign the residue of the term.

Where I am less clear is whether as a trustee holding property on trust for a beneficiary you can leave that control of the estate to another person when you die. I am doubtful. If an individual is appointed as trustee (as opposed to a bank or professional organisation) it is presumably because he or she has such personal qualities that they have inspired confidence in whoever created the trust. How can that be passed on when in theory we can leave our property to anyone we choose. In other words if the trustee chooses to leave trust property to Fagin, the founder of the trust or the benficiaries are likely to worry about what will happen to the trust property! Any lawyers out there?

cheers

[JohnN]

I'm not a lawyer either, but did have to study for Banking exams in days gone by.

My old Nevill's Trusts, Wills and Administration suggests that the responsibilities of a sole trustee is passed on to his (or her) Personal Representative in event of the trustee's death, but subject to approval by the Court (to cover the Fagin situation above, no doubt). If the trustee dies intestate, the Court will appoint an administrator.

I stand ready to be corrected...

[Colin Moretti]

No doubt that it would depend on the terms of the trust.

I have a copy of a trust deed of 1794 - in this case a charitable trust to fund a school teacher - where it is clear that the trusteeship transfers to the heirs, administrators or assigns of the named original trustees:
John Crouch hath transferred to and in the Names of [the trustees] the Sum of [five hundred pounds] ... upon the trusts and to and for the Ends Intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned ... In Trust that they the said [trustees] and the Survivor of them and the Executors and Administrators of such Survivor do and shall ...There's no mention of the need for court approval of any new trustee.

Colin

[nataliew]

Thanks Mutley - I can see that it seems to be standard wording in wills and I'd probably leave it there, were it not for the word 'leaseholds' written next to the value of the will which is stated as 'effects under £450'. That seems to suggest that part of the estate is a leasehold, as Tony thinks.
I have no legal, banking or trust experience (!) but I do have many years of analysing language as an English teacher and my attention is drawn to the syntax.... The 'but as to the estates vested in me' is the second clause of the sentence leaving all real and personal estate to my wife absolutely. So the 'BUT' seems to function as an 'EXCEPT' - meaning I leave everything to the wife apart from the stuff I hold as a trustee or mortgagee. Interestingly to what Colin and John were saying, the will says nothing else. There is no mention of an administrator or representative, or what should be done with any trust or mortgage. The wife is appointed as the sole executor.
Which leads me back to wondering if I can find out what he was had in trust or mortgaged...

[Mutley]

I am treading in mucky waters as I really have no knowledge at all.

What I do know is that there were many properties that were leasehold, long leases certainly of 99 years and much more. These were often maisonette type dwellings or flats, maybe called apartments these days, where two or more occupancies were situated on the same piece of freehold land. A minimal amount was paid yearly for rental of the freehold land.

Is it possible that he was able to leave the dwelling, being the leasehold accommodation but was not able to pass on the freehold piece of land that it occupied because that would have been owned by someone else.

It may also be worth noting that "The will is witnessed by a conveyancer" and he would know far more than I do about leasehold and freehold. :smile5:

[Geoffers]

But then it follows "but as to the estates vested in me as trustee or by way of mortgage subject to the equities and trusts affecting the same respectively'

It would depend on the precise wording that follows the above.

This may well be part of a standard 'just in case I have anything else which I've forgotten or do not not at the moment control, but may do later' clause in a will - but - it may relate to a specific bequest.

Are there any family wills which mention your chap as a trustee?

Was your chap in business with someone else and may have been made a trustee by their will?

[nataliew]

@ Mutley - yes I noticed the conveyancer being a witness... Passing on the leasehold seems a good option. I guess I need to investigate how long the wife stayed at that address. The postal address also changed between him making the will and his death - 1, cornwall terrace, holland road became 54 holland road.
@ Geoffers - thanks, yes I can't imagine any other family wills. I've not been able to trace any siblings and his parents are long-dead poor labourers. Similarly he has contact with cousins but again poor labourers. He's the one who 'makes it' as a clerk and gentleman. I've narrowed the cement company he worked for down to 2 likely contenders - could he have held something in trust for them?
The plot thickens...!

[tony vines]

As an English teacher (you not me) I would caution against using syntactical logic to analyse something written by a lawyer. If you've ever read a contract, particularly a property document, you will realise very quickly that lawyers are not very hot on things like punctuation. They compose the longest unpunctuated sentences you'll ever come across.

[Mutley]

As an English teacher (you not me) I would caution against using syntactical logic to analyse something written by a lawyer. If you've ever read a contract, particularly a property document, you will realise very quickly that lawyers are not very hot on things like punctuation. They compose the longest unpunctuated sentences you'll ever come across.

I understand the meaning of every single word in a contract but not the way they string them together. :smile5: