Beneficial Interest Research Articles

Universal Health Realty Income Trust

AbstractProperty, Real Estate & Development (MIC: 8.3 SIC: 6798 NAIC: 525930)Universal Health Realty Income Trust is an organized Maryland real estate investment trust (REIT). As of Dec 31 2006, Co. had investments in 45 facilities located in 15 states consisting of investments in healthcare and human service related facilities including acute care hospitals, behavioral healthcare facilities, rehabilitation hospitals, sub‐acute care facilities, surgery centers, pre‐school and childcare centers and medical office buildings. Six of Co.'s hospital facilities are leased to subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). As of Dec 31 2006, UHS owned 6.7% of Co.'s outstanding shares of beneficial interest.

Remuneration of a trustee

After having obtained a decree of divorce in default of appearance, the wife of a German national, Franz Wilhelm Kohlrautz, who had retired after a successful career as an offshore investment adviser, appointed a receiver to obtain possession of the matrimonial property. This property was alleged by the wife to include substantial assets held by companies in various parts of the world. Mr Kohlrautz, on the other hand, said he had no beneficial interest in these assets and they belonged to clients or third parties. Mareva injunctions, Anton Piller orders and proceedings in the United States, Switzerland, Germany, Liechtenstein, England, Jersey and The Bahamas, sought to obtain possession of this property. Mr Kohlrautz found a friend in Dr Diedrichs-Shurland, another German also living in The Bahamas, and her husband, Mr Kemuel Shurland, a criminal lawyer. They offered to help Mr Kohlrautz by providing legal services and by Dr Diedrichs-Shurland holding...

Universal Health Realty Income Trust

AbstractProperty, Real Estate & Development (MIC: 8.3 SIC: 6798 NAIC: 525930)Universal Health Realty Income Trust is an organized Maryland real estate investment trust (REIT). As of Dec 31 2006, Co. had investments in 45 facilities located in 15 states consisting of investments in healthcare and human service related facilities including acute care hospitals, behavioral healthcare facilities, rehabilitation hospitals, sub‐acute care facilities, surgery centers, pre‐school and childcare centers and medical office buildings. Six of Co.'s hospital facilities are leased to subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). As of Dec 31 2006, UHS owned 6.7% of Co.'s outstanding shares of beneficial interest.

Universal Health Realty Income Trust

AbstractProperty, Real Estate & Development (MIC: 8.3 SIC: 6798 NAIC: 525930)Universal Health Realty Income Trust is an organized Maryland real estate investment trust (REIT). As of Dec 31 2005, Co. had investments in 43 facilities located in 15 states consisting of investments in healthcare and human service related facilities including acute care hospitals, behavioral healthcare facilities, rehabilitation hospitals, sub‐acute care facilities, surgery centers, pre‐school and childcare centers and medical office buildings. Five of Co.'s hospital facilities are leased to subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). As of Dec 31 2005, UHS owned 6.7% of Co.'s outstanding shares of beneficial interest.

Property Disputes between Co-Owning Cohabitees—Ireland and England Compared

Disputes in relation to the family home frequently arise on the breakdown of a relationship between unmarried cohabitees. The Irish purchase money resulting trust may generate no beneficial interest, or one that is smaller than expected, for the primary carer who co-owns the family home. In addition, the primary carer may be forced to leave the home, as an application by the other co-owner for an order for the sale of the property pursuant to the Partition Acts 1868 and 1876 is unlikely to be refused. This article compares the position of this vulnerable co-owner with the position of her counterpart in England. It concludes that the application of the English common intention constructive trust is likely to generate a more generous share in the beneficial ownership for the primary carer. Also, in proceedings pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the English courts are afforded the flexibility to refuse or postpone an order for sale if the primary carer and the children continue to reside in the co-owned property.

A RE-APPRAISAL OF THE FIDUCIARY SELF-DEALING AND FAIR-DEALING RULES

INTito v. Waddell (No. 2), Megarry V.-C. famously described, and differentiated, the two dealing rules, the “self-dealing rule” and the “fair-dealing rule”, that apply to those occupying fiduciary positions: The self-dealing rule is … that if a trustee sells the trust property to himself, the sale is voidable by any beneficiary ex debito justitiae, however fair the transaction. The fair-dealing rule is … that if a trustee purchases the beneficial interest of any of his beneficiaries, the transaction is not voidable ex debito justitiae, but can be set aside by the beneficiary unless the trustee can show that he has taken no advantage of his position and has made full disclosure to the beneficiary, and that the transaction is fair and honest.

Overreaching In Registered Land Law

Beneficial interests under a trust were not intended to be overriding interests under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. The position was altered by Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland, which determined that an interest under a trust for sale would bind a purchaser if the beneficiary were in actual occupation. The decision raised the question whether such interests could be overreached once the beneficiary was in occupation of the trust property. City of London Building Society v Flegg held that the relevant beneficial interest had been overreached. Both decisions assume that overreaching in registered conveyancing takes effect as it does in unregistered land. Yet there is considerable evidence that the Land Registration Act contains its own overreaching machinery. The House of Lords applied the wrong overreaching provisions in Boland and Flegg and there is no legal basis on which to recognise that trust interests can override a subsequent disposition under section 70(1)(g).

Universal Health Realty Income Trust

AbstractProperty, Real Estate & Development (MIC: 8.3 SIC: 6798 NAIC: 525930)Universal Health Realty Income Trust is an organized Maryland real estate investment trust (REIT). As of Dec 31 2004, Co. had investments in 43 facilities located in 15 states consisting of investments in healthcare and human service related facilities including acute care hospitals, behavioral healthcare facilities, rehabilitation hospitals, sub‐acute care facilities, surgery centers, pre‐school and childcare centers and medical office buildings. Six of Co.'s hospital facilities and three medical office buildings are leased to subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). As of Dec 31 2004, UHS owned 6.7% of Co.'s outstanding shares of beneficial interest.

Universal Health Realty Income Trust

Mergent's Dividend AchieversVolume 3, Issue 4 p. 292-292 U.S. Company Reports Universal Health Realty Income Trust† First published: 10 October 2006 https://doi.org/10.1002/div.4935 † Contact: : Alan B. Miller — Chmn., Pres., C.E.O. Address: : Universal Corporate Center, 367 South Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-0958 Web Site: : www.uhrit.com AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Property, Real Estate & Development (MIC: 8.3 SIC: 6798 NAIC: 525930) Universal Health Realty Income Trust is an organized Maryland real estate investment trust (REIT). As of Dec 31 2005, Co. had investments in 43 facilities located in 15 states consisting of investments in healthcare and human service related facilities including acute care hospitals, behavioral healthcare facilities, rehabilitation hospitals, sub-acute care facilities, surgery centers, pre-school and childcare centers and medical office buildings. Five of Co.'s hospital facilities are leased to subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). As of Dec 31 2005, UHS owned 6.7% of Co.'s outstanding shares of beneficial interest. Volume3, Issue4Autumn (Fall) 2006Pages 292-292 RelatedInformation

Universal Health Realty Income Trust

Mergent's Dividend AchieversVolume 3, Issue 2 p. 294-294 U.S. Company Reports Universal Health Realty Income Trust† First published: 20 April 2006 https://doi.org/10.1002/div.4102 † Contact: : Alan B. Miller — Chmn., Pres. C.E.O. Address: : Universal Corporate Center, 367 South Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-0958 Web Site: : www.uhrit.com AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Property, Real Estate & Development (MIC: 8.3 SIC: 6798 NAIC: 525930) Universal Health Realty Income Trust is an organized Maryland real estate investment trust (REIT). As of Dec 31 2005, Co. had investments in 43 facilities located in 15 states consisting of investments in healthcare and human service related facilities including acute care hospitals, behavioral healthcare facilities, rehabilitation hospitals, sub-acute care facilities, surgery centers, pre-school and childcare centers and medical office buildings. Five of Co.'s hospital facilities are leased to subsidiaries of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). As of Dec 31 2005, UHS owned 6.7% of Co.'s outstanding shares of beneficial interest. Volume3, Issue2Spring 2006Pages 294-294 RelatedInformation

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the Shared Home: Issues for Cohabitants

From the date of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 coming into force, in December 2005, same‐sex couples can register a civil partnership, thereby giving them rights and responsibilities that are analogous to those for married spouses. These include access to a property regime to deal with property matters at the end of the civil partnership. An issue that arose when the 2004 Act was being passed was the exclusion of the economically vulnerable opposite‐sex cohabitant, who would not have access to either the said Act or the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to deal with his or her rights; in particular, rights over the shared home. The Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighted the potential human rights issues that might arise and that the government would need to provide strong justification for the differential treatment of opposite‐sex cohabitants. This article explores the extent to which opposite‐sex cohabitants may be able to draw on the Human Rights Act 1998 to bolster their claims to a beneficial interest in the shared home, either under the common law or by access to a statutory regime such as that provided by the 2004 Act and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Asset Pricing and Investor Risk in Subordinated Asset Securitisation

As a sign of ambivalence in the regulatory definition of capital adequacy for credit risk and the quest for more efficient refinancing sources collateral loan obligations (CLOs) have become a prominent securitisation mechanism. This paper presents a loss-based asset pricing model for the valuation of constituent tranches within a CLO-style security design. The model specifically examines how tranche subordination translates securitised credit risk into investment risk of issued tranches as beneficial interests on a designated loan pool typically underlying a CLO transaction. We obtain a tranchespecific term structure from an intensity-based simulation of defaults under both robust statistical analysis and extreme value theory (EVT). Loss sharing between issuers and investors according to a simplified subordination mechanism allows issuers to decompose securitised credit risk exposures into a collection of default sensitive debt securities with divergent risk profiles and expected investor returns. Our estimation results suggest a dichotomous effect of loss cascading, with the default term structure of the most junior tranche of CLO transactions (“first loss position”) being distinctly different from that of the remaining, more senior “investor tranches”. The first loss position carries large expected loss (with high investor return) and low leverage, whereas all other tranches mainly suffer from loss volatility (unexpected loss). These findings might explain why issuers retain the most junior tranche as credit enhancement to attenuate asymmetric information between issuers and investors. At the same time, the issuer discretion in the configuration of loss subordination within particular security design might give rise to implicit investment risk in senior tranches in the event of systemic shocks.

International Seminar on Shah Wali-Allah's Thought

Ahinad ibn Abd al-Rahim, better known as Shah Wali-Allab of Delhi( 1703-1762), is perhaps the greatest intellectual figure of Islam in SouthAsia. An international seminar was organized on his thought (as containedin Hujjat-Allah al-Balighah) on February 20-22, 2001 by the Shah WaliAllahDehlavi Research Cell of the Institute of Islamic Studies, AligarhMuslim University, India.Wali-Allah was a prolofic writer in Arabic and Persian and a "syntheticthinker" like Al-Ghazali and ibn-Khaldun. He made his contribution onthe eve of the modem (colonial) period. The British in the Bay of Bengalhad their eyes set on Delhi, the Mughul seat of Muslim power. Deeplyconcerned, Wali-Allah understood his mission to be a two-fold reformationof "the religion and the state." With his favorite slogan "Back to theQur'an", he called for a complete change of the old order and sought to"reopen" the doors of jihad and ijtihad.
 In his resistance to the growing power of the Mrathas and Sikhs, he isbelieved to have set a tradition for the subsequent generations of MuslimIndia. Acclaimed variously by different Islamic groups as a reformer,a purifier, a revivalist and a modernizer, Wali-Allah is considered to be thespiritual and intellectual progenitor to a host of religio-political movementsin South Asia, including the Mujahidin movement, the Deobandmovement, the Aligarh movement and the Pakistan movement. Hisinfluence has also been acknowledged on the subsequent generations ofMuslim thinkers in the Indian subcontinent including Allama MuhammadIqbal and Mawlana Abul Aala Mawdudi.In his magnum opus, Hajjat-Allah al-Balighah (The ConclusiveArgument from God), Wali-Allah has worked out an "integrated scheme"of Shari'ah, or a theoretical basis for interpretation and applicationof Shari'ah against a background provided by his ideas of "humanpurposefulness" and "beneficial interests". He believed that his(pre-modern) age demanded a projection of Shari'ah with reasoned andconvincing "arguments", unraveling the secrets (deeper meanings) ofreligious symbols and injunctions ...

FOR LOVE OR MONEY? DEPENDENT CARERS AND FAMILY PROVISION

LOUISE Rose, born with serious physical and mental disabilities as a result of medical negligence at delivery, obtained £250,000 by way of settlement of her claim against the defendant health authority. This sum, administered by the Court of Protection, was used to enable her mother, Mrs. Bouette, to purchase a house in which they could both live. Its price was met as to three-quarters by the damages fund and as to one-quarter by her mother, and beneficial interests were declared in the property to represent their respective contributions. Mrs. Bouette received regular payments from the Court of Protection to cover Louise's living expenses and to purchase equipment for Louise, as well as social security benefits from the State in respect of her care for Louise. On Louise's death, at the age of fourteen, the rules of intestacy dictated that her estate, comprising her 75% share in the house and the residual fund, was to be divided in equal shares between her parents. Although Louise's father had separated from her mother when Louise was eight months old, he had an equal entitlement to the daughter's property, and realisation of his share would inevitably involve sale of the house. Mrs. Bouette accordingly brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, arguing that she was dependent on her daughter immediately before her death, and that she had not obtained reasonable financial provision as a result of the operation of the intestacy rules. The father applied to strike out the mother's claim, and the question of her dependency was tried as a preliminary issue: Bouette v. Rose, sub nom. Re B (deceased) [2000] 1 All E.R. 665.

Asset Protection Trusts: Trust Law's Race to the Bottom?

A number of offshore jurisdictions, joined recently by two American states, have enacted legislation permitting trust settlors to create trusts in which settlor may retain a beneficial interest while shielding that interest from the settlor's creditors. Because the costs of such legislation are felt largely outside the enacting jurisdiction while the benefits are concentrated within that jurisdiction, jurisdictional competition threatens to generate a to the bottom. After examining the conditions that have led to this race to the bottom, the article suggests that a variety of established doctrinal rules - ranging from choice-of-law principles to bankruptcy statutes - constrain the race to the bottom by restricting the advantages trust settlors may realize from creating asset protection trusts.

Sharp v. Thomson, House of Lords (Lord Brown-Wilkinson, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn and Lord Clyde) 27 February 1997, [1997] SLT 636

A company granted a floating charge over all its assets. The floating charge is a universal hypothec, introduced from English law in 1961. It covers both moveables and immoveables. A floating charge is not a real right at first, but becomes one when it crystallises. According to s. 462(1) of the Companies Act 1985 it is competent under the law of Scotland for an incorporated company to grant such a floating charge "over all or any part of the property … which may from time to time be comprised in its property and undertaking". After granting the floating charge, the company contracted to sell a flat to the defendants. This was followed by delivery of the deed of conveyance (the disposition). A final stage before transfer of real rights in the property is complete is registration of the conveyance. The floating charge crystallised, however, before this formality was completed. The question for the courts was therefore whether the floating charge attached to the flat on crystallisation. At first instance and on appeal the Scots courts determined that the transfer of the real rights in the property to the Thomsons had not been perfected and that therefore the flat fell within the scope of the floating charge when it crystallised. In the House of Lords, however, a different solution was retained. The "beneficial interest" in the property was found to have been transferred to the purchasers on disposition. The reference to property which may be comprised in a company's "property and undertaking" in s. 462(1) of the Companies Act was interpreted as meaning property in which the company had a beneficial interest. The floating charge did not, therefore, attach to the flat. By invoking the idea that there is scope for some intermediate legal category between personal and real rights, involving the transfer of the beneficial interest in property, the decision has traumatised a certain section of the Scottish legal community - ever resistant to invasions from over the border. Although Lord Clyde stressed that "the approach taken by the appellants in this case does not seek to innovate upon the established principles of Scottish land law or conveyancing", the distinction drawn between legal and beneficial ownership mirrors the English law concepts constantly used in the law of property to distinguish between legal and equitable rights - a distinction not used in Scots law.

Life Assurance and the Cohabitant: The Law Commission's Reforms on Privity

In its recent report on privity of contract the Law Commission considered, inter alia, whether reform of section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 should be entertained at this time. The title of that Act is somewhat misleading but in essence section 11 provides that a life assurance policy on the life of a man or woman for the expressed benefit of his/her spouse and or children, creates a trust in favour of the named spouse or child. Thus the beneficial interest in the policy never forms part of the assured's estate, which result may be of particular importance to the beneficiary in the event of the assured's insolvency because by section 283 of the Insolvency Act 1986 trust assets are expressly excluded from the bankrupt's estate capable of vesting in the trustee in bankruptey and thereafter being available for distribution to creditors.

The myth of common intention

The leading recent authority on beneficial interests in shared homes is Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset, where the House of Lords clarified what had become rather a confused area of law. By no means all the problems were resolved, however, and the House proceeded on the basis of a now commonly-held but nevertheless fundamental misapprehension, that common intention is relevant to the creation of a trust. It is our contention that once it is clear precisely whose intention is relevant, and why, many of the conceptual difficulties in this area disappear.For the purposes of the discussion, we consider the two situations, where legal title to a home is vested in A alone, and where it is vested in A and B jointly. In each case, the question is whether B can claim a beneficial interest, and if so, what is its nature and extent.

The things we do for love: detrimental reliance in the family home

The rules governing the acquisition of beneficial interests in family homes have generated a great deal of academic literature since their restatement, and apparent clarification, by the House of Lords in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset. In what has become an all too familiar passage, Lord Bridge outlined the two methods by which such an interest can be acquired in the absence of writing. For a claimant to succeed under the first of these (the only one with which this article will be concerned), the court must be satisfied that there has been: (a) an ‘agreement, arrangement or understanding’ between the claimant and the legal owner to share the beneficial interest, evidenced by oral discussions between them; and (b) that the claimant has acted to her detriment, or significantly altered her position, in reliance on the agreement. If these requirements are satisfied the claimant will obtain an interest, according to Lord Bridge, by way of constructive trust or proprietary estoppel.

Quantification of Beneficial Interests in Land

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.