Abstract
Fiduciary transfer of ownership is being introduced in more and more civil law jurisdictions as a reply to increasing popularity of trust viewed as a division in ownership between the trustee and the beneficiary. I used examples of Quebec, France, and Germany to show how these civilian systems deal with the notion of division of ownership. In the first two they use various constructs such as division of patrimony, or no one’s patrimony, while in Germany it seems it is clear that the trustee acquires full ownership over entrusted assets whereas settlor or beneficiary have only personal rights. Also one gets the impression that the focus was at the protection of entrusted patrimony from the creditors. Nothing suggests that due attention was paid to the protection of settlor or beneficiary in case of trustee’s breach of trust and alienation of entrusted assets contrary to the trust instrument. I believe that settlor or beneficiaries should have rights in rem against the trustee and third party acquirers of entrusted assets, and that leads to the concept of fiduciary ownership as a division in ownership between the settlor and the trustee or trustee and beneficiary, essentially it means the emergence of different kinds of ownership.
Highlights
Čvrsto verujem da se ravnoteža u zaštiti interesa svih strana prilikom fiducijarnog prenosa prava svojine može postići jedino koncipiranjem ovog insitituta kao podele svojine na dve nove vrste svojine, kako je opisano u četvrtom delu rada
I believe that settlor or beneficiaries should have rights in rem against the trustee and third party acquirers of entrusted assets, and that leads to the concept of fiduciary ownership as a division in ownership between the settlor and the trustee or trustee and beneficiary, essentially it means the emergence of different kinds of ownership
Summary
Nelagoda koju u kontinentalno-pravnim sistemima izaziva ideja o podeli svojine i trud koji se ulaže kako bi se izbeglo makar i njeno pominjanje lepo se vidi u Građanskom zakoniku Kvebeka (CCQ) i raspravi koja prati trast, odnosno fiduciju koja je njime uređena. Ako je on titular prava na imovini kojom upravlja, a upravlja imovinom drugih, onda se nameće zaključak da je ipak reč o podeli prava svojine na stvarima koje tu imovinu čine između dva ili više lica. Ali ako nije reč o prenosu svojine na poverenika, onda je teško objasniti kako to da prenosilac ne može svoje pravo svojine koje je samo poverio na upravljanje suprotstaviti svim trećim licima koja su stvari koje su predmet tog prava svojine stekla od poverenika, a takvo raspolaganje je na primer bilo u suprotnosti sa ciljem fiducije. Ali izlučno pravo koje utemeljivač ima u slučaju stečaja poverenika nije vezano samo za pravo svojine već i za obligaciona prava (Insolvenzordnung, 1994, §47), tako da se na osnovu same činjenice da utemeljivač ima izlučno pravo ne može zaključiti da je reč o uslovnoj ili vremenski ograničenoj svojini. U sva tri slučaja, a naročito u Francuskoj i Nemačkoj, kao i u literaturi koja mi je bila dostupna, izgleda da se mnogo više pažnje poklanjalo zaštiti prenosioca ili beneficijara od poverenikovih poverilaca, a da se nije vodilo dovoljno računa o njihovoj zaštiti u slučaju da poverenik suprotno dogovoru ili cilju fiducije otuđi poverenu svojinu nekom trećem
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
