quote:

---

Originally posted by littlemo
[br]Well to me your "email" implies that a Trust Deed NEVER ends!!
" It also happens to be one of the more complex areas of Scots Law and the various arguments being presented by those wishing to ÔÇ£reopenÔÇØ (were they ever closed!?)"
Form 5 worthless????

Very murky waters indeed!

---

And also with respect, the insolvency practitioner will have limited knowledge of the law....won't he?

They're the view of an insolvency practitioner informed by the views of solicitors who are interested in this case.

Just like to thankyou ! well most of you for both your advice and encouragment! from day one ive felt that given the chance to tell anyone my side of this that anyone could fail to accept that this should never have got this far even. firstly the TD is from 10 years ago when PPI claims were about 5 years from being a reality! the fact i fought clydesdale bank alone for almost 2 years involving weekly calls for claim update and having to dig up paperwork from nearly 2 decades ago ! and never once was the TD nor the trustee company mentioned or involved untill my final settlement letter informing me yhat they were receiving all 14k of the settlement. also i have every bit of documentation to substantiate everything! pheww!! again thank you all and ill hopefully reporting good news on Fri night GS

I wish you well gscullion1977.

Lots of respect for you fighting your corner like this.

I've told gscullion and others what I would do in this situation. That's a fact.

I wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer to represent me. That's a fact. I'd have to do the work on my own. That's a fact.

I have no idea how successful I'd be, but I'd give it a go. That's also a fact.

As far as I'm concerned a Sheriff takes the decisions in his own court. If the Sheriff agrees or disagrees with the late Lord Jones' decision, he can say so. If he wants to put things on hold until the appeal is finished, he can say so.

The Sheriff will tell me what he's willing to look at and what he doesn't see as relevant. That's his job.

If the Sheriff was willing to look at the points in the ÔÇÿcourt of session' case, I would give it its full title. I'm not sure if I can do that on this forum.

The late Lord Jones said that the issue between the parties concerned the meaning of the words ÔÇ£the final distribution of my Estate... by my Trustee in accordance with this Trust DeedÔÇØ.

Maybe they looked at Schedule 5 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 but that hasn't been mentioned in the judgement. I'd mention Schedule 5 to the Sheriff.

I'd point out the bit which says that ÔÇ£the Trustee, after the debtor's estate has been finally distributed among his creditors or the trust deed has otherwise ceased to be operative, shallÔÇØ recall the inhibition.

I'd mention the date that my former trustee recalled the inhibition.

ÔÇÿWas the trust deed ever closed?!' That's what all the discussion and court action is about.

ÔÇÿLack of clarity'. That's what the Scottish Law Commission said about trust law in Scotland in August 2014.

The Sheriff will tell me and everyone else what he thinks is relevant and what he decides.

I might not win. I certainly haven't told anyone that they will win by doing what I would do.

I'd still give it a go. If I don't do anything the Trustee will win anyway. I'd rather lose trying to defend myself than lose by simply not turning up.

That's a fact.

Good post Candlewick.

"Was a trust deed ever closed?". I always imagined this to be the case once a trustee was discharged after fulfilling his obligations otherwise its in perpetuity.

That's what seems to make this so bewildering tinsoldier; the fact that the law might say something so contradictory to what almost all of us would otherwise assume.

But then that's a slightly different question to who's due the money.

I like candlewick's facts. Lots of people have views on this subject, often irreconcilable views, but the facts are that everyone has the right to make their arguments and be heard.

I have a pre proof hearing on the 1st June re my trustee to reopen my trust deed. I was asked by the Sheriff to submit my answers to the application to the court by the 5th May which a solicitor has done for me. I am incidentally still continuing to represent myself. I received a letter from his solicitor today making reference to a case with a Sheriff Hooligan where he ruled that the application for reappointment was not incompetent. I do not understand legal jargon and I will indeed continue to fight this reappointment hoping that the Doneen case at the Inner court of session clears this up once and for all. I am so grateful for all the support and advice on this forum. I will fight this until the end with all I have got. Good luck in court on Friday.

Good post Candlewick.

Good luck to you too Gleith.

In my letter from my solicitor he states that Lord Jones decided that the discharge of the trust deed and trustee meant that the process was final. He thinks my case should be suspended till we know the result of the appeal on June 9th. He did say that it may be delayed for a number of reasons and that even if the hearing proceeds and concluded there may still not be a decision made immediately. Fingers crossed there is and we can all get out money which is so rightfully ours.

hi all ! went to court this morning and was immediately approached by the trustees lawyer who advised me he would be looking to sustain any verdict till after the court of session appeal on 9th june! he informed me this would be best regarding us both possibly appealing any decision made today! the judge when hearing began seemed to be of the same opinion so i agreed to hold off! a total anti climax for something which has rummbled on already1 does everyone think i made the right decision? thanks GS

I don't know if it was the right decision or not GS.

On the face of it, you could have spent more time appealing it and the judge seemed to think it was the right thing to do.

Not too long to wait for the appeal verdict and then decide if the facts of that case apply to your case.

You probably have not lost anything at this stage - other than progress. The appeal may be in your favour and you may not have to go back again at all.

Things often happen for a reason. Maybe this is the right decision for you today.

All seems to point towards the appeal hearing at the CoS being very influential for pending cases around at the moment.

I don't think you had much choice, GS. I think it may have been difficult to argue that the sheriff should ignore that appeal and make a decision today, but then to go on and base your case on the initial decision made in that other case.

I think you're right, tinsoldier. Will be interesting to see how that appeal goes.