A Double-Hurdle Model of Irish Household Expenditure on Prepared Meals

In this paper, Irish households' expenditure on prepared meals for home consumption is analysed using the 1987 and 1994 Irish Household Budget Survey datasets. The aim of the paper is to analyse the factors influencing Irish households' decisions to purchase prepared meals and how much to spend on these food items. This is done using the double-hurdle methodology adjusted for the problems of heteroscedasticity and non-normality. Income elasticities are estimated for household expenditure on prepared meals in both years and significant socio-economic influences are identified. These socio-economic factors are assumed to underpin the tastes and preferences of Irish households, with convenience identified as a significant preference of many household groups.

Ohio Trust Code Update: Recent Developments

This article is based on the author’s presentations at the 20th Annual Estate Planning Conference on Wealth Transfer in Columbus on June 26, 2009. Since its enactment in 2006, effective January 1, 2007, the Ohio Trust Code (“OTC”) has been amended, a number of cases have been decided under it, and a variety of issues related to or raised by it have been identified. This article will review those developments. Copyright Acknowledgment: This material is reprinted from the Probate Law Journal of Ohio with permission of Thomson Reuters. Copyright permission is on file

The Intention of the Settlor Under the Uniform Trust Code: Whose Property Is It, Anyway?

The Intention of the Settlor Under the Uniform Trust Code: Whose Property Is It, Anyway? The question of the extent to which the owner of property may transfer it gratuitously, subject to enforceable restrictions on alienability and use, has a long history. To protect the living from control by the dead, as well as the alienability of property, the law traditionally has refused to enforce some such restrictions. Opposing those interests, however, is the interest in respecting the freedom of the owner of property to dispose of it subject to whatever restrictions he or she chooses to impose. The Uniform Trust Code (“UTC”), promulgated in 2000, is the first comprehensive national codification of the law of trusts. As such, it provides an excellent opportunity to examine current thinking on how the balance should be struck between the property rights of trust settlors who wish to control the future enjoyment of their property by others, and the interests of trust beneficiaries whose enjoyment of the property is limited by settlor imposed restrictions. The purpose of this Article is to engage in that examination. Generally, the UTC provides default rules that apply only if and to the extent that the settlor does not provide otherwise in the instrument. The settlor’s ability to override the UTC’s rules, however, is expressly limited by mandatory rules, on fundamental subjects, that apply regardless of the settlor’s express intent to the contrary. Although the UTC’s mandatory rules will serve as an important focus of this Article, the issue of the extent to which the settlor’s intent will be respected under the UTC arises in a variety of other contexts that also will be analyzed. The tension between the property rights of settlors and the interests of beneficiaries exists with respect to many subjects addressed by the UTC, including (i) the modification and termination of trusts, (ii) the alienability of the beneficiary’s interest, (iii) the rights of beneficiaries to receive information about the trust, (iv) the ability of the beneficiaries to change the trustee, (v) the ability of the settlor to impose value limiting restrictions on the management and investment of trust assets, and (vi) the ability of the settlor to relieve the trustee from the duty to act in good faith and to exculpate the trustee from liability for breaching a fiduciary duty. UTC provisions with respect to the settlor’s ability to control property transferred in trust also involve the settlor’s ability to fix the trustee’s compensation or to waive or require a trustee’s bond; the requirements for creating a valid trust, including that its purposes not violate public policy; the ability of the beneficiaries and the trustee to act collectively in ways that circumvent the settlor’s intent; and the court’s overriding ability to act as necessary in the interests of justice. The Article will demonstrate that the UTC has taken modest steps towards accommodating the interests of beneficiaries when those interests will not be served by strict adherence to the settlor’s intent as set forth in the terms of the trust. In other respects, consistent with the common law, the UTC continues to honor the settlor’s intent. Finally, in some respects the UTC provides greater protection to the settlor’s intent than under common law

Ohio Uniform Trust Code Takes Shape

The Uniform Trust Code (UTC) has been under study in Ohio since shortly after its approval by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2000. See, e.g., Susan S. Locke, et. al., Uniform Trust Code, 11 PLJO 49 (Mar./Apr. 2001); David M. English, The Uniform Trust Code (2000) and Its Application to Ohio, 12 PLJO 1 (Sept./Oct. 2001); and David M. English, The Uniform Trust Code (2000) and its Application to Ohio, 30 Capital University Law Review 1 (2000). Substantial progress has been made towards the adoption of a modified version of the UTC in Ohio. At a meeting in December of 2003, a joint committee on the UTC consisting of representatives of the Estate Planning, Trust, and Probate Law Section of the Ohio State Bar Association and the Legal, Legislative, and Regulatory Committee of the Ohio Bankers League (OBL) completed the first part of its decision-making process for changes to be made to the UTC for the Ohio Uniform Trust Code (OUTC). The resulting initial draft of the OUTC is currently under review by the EPTPL section, the OBL, and the Ohio Association of Probate Judges. Based on preliminary discussions with the Legislative Services Commission of Ohio, the draft has been prepared to be enacted as part of newly created title 58 of the Revised Code, which would be devoted to trusts. The primary purpose of this article is to summarize some of the more important provisions of the OUTC, particularly those that would change existing Ohio law. Generally, this summary is presented in the order in which the topics covered appear in the OUTC. A comprehensive list and discussion of changes the OUTC would make to existing Ohio law (and changes made to the UTC in drafting the OUTC) are included in a Report the author prepared for the Joint Committee

The religious beliefs, rituals and values of the Ringatu Church : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Social Anthropology at Massey University

This thesis sets out to understand and to interpret the faith aspects of the Ringatu Church, which is comprised of the followers of Te Kooti, and because both he and his followers have been, and still are much misunderstood, to examine the Ringatu claim to be seen as a part of the Christian Church. The Introduction surveys how some writers have applied various anthropological theories in their respective studies of the Maori prophetic movements, and by either comparison or agreement, the present writer indicates his own theoretical approach. This approach emphasizes that these Maori movements are primarily a response to revelation, and that they are concerned with expressing meaning, asserting identity, and seeking some measure of control over their environment. Chapter one provides an outline of traditional or pre-European Maori religion, in order that such elements may be identified in the Ringatu faith. Chapter two sketches the life of Te Kooti, the background of his times, the events in which he was involved, and the beginning and the development of the Ringatu Church. Chapter three, describes the Church in its present organization, and the variety and content of its services of worship. Chapter four attempts to identify traditional, Old Testament and New Testament components in the Church's liturgy and practice, and to assess the church's claim to be truly Christian. Chapter five poses some questions and expresses some hopes about the future of the people called Ringatu, in the light of problems faced by them at present

Shoemaker V. Gindlesberger: The Lack of Privity Defense Survives, But Just Barely

In Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger, decided in May of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court held that: “A beneficiary of a decedent\u27s will may not maintain a negligence action against an attorney for the preparation of a deed that results in increased tax liability for the estate.” In doing so, the Court approved and followed its 1987 decision in Simon v. Zipperstein. Under Zipperstein, an attorney who prepares a will for a client can not be liable in negligence to a third person the client intended to benefit under the will unless (i) the third person was in privity with the client or (ii) there are special circumstances present, such as fraud, bad faith, collusion or other malicious conduct. Copyright Acknowledgment: This material is reprinted from the Probate Law Journal of Ohio with permission of Thomson Reuters. Copyright permission is on file

Powers of Withdrawal, Claims for Set-Off, and Spendthrift Protection

If a beneficiary of a spendthrift trust has a right to withdraw property from the trust, may the beneficiary’s creditors reach the assets subject to the withdrawal power? That was the principle question recently addressed by the 1st District Court of Appeals in Great American Insurance Company v. Thompson Trust. Also of interest: the case may have involved an offset by the trustee of amounts distributable to the beneficiary to repay amounts owed by the beneficiary to the trust

The Intention of the Settlor Under the Uniform Trust Code: Whose Property Is It, Anyway?

Given the increasingly common use of perpetual and other longterm trusts, the pace of change and complexity in our society now and in the foreseeable future, and our sensibilities with respect to private property rights and dead hand control, the UTC appears to have struck a reasonable balance between respecting the settlor’s intent and accommodating the interests of beneficiaries. Undoubtedly, some will find it to have gone too far in favor of trust beneficiaries, while others will find it not to have gone far enough. In any case, this centuries old debate, like the new perpetual trusts that have contributed to its latest round, likely will continue into the indefinite future

Report on HB 416: The Ohio Trust Code as Enacted

Report on HB 416: The Ohio Trust Code As Enacted This Report begins with a discussion of policy considerations related to the 2007 enactment of the Ohio Trust Code (OTC). Next, it discusses how the OTC will be incorporated into the Ohio Revised Code. The Report then discusses many of the OTC’s provisions, in the same order as those provisions are included in the OTC. The focus of the discussion of OTC provisions is on those that will change existing Ohio law, or that are changes from the Uniform Trust Code (UTC). Thus, the Report does not provide a general explanation of the UTC. For such an explanation, see the article by the UTC Reporter, David M. English, The Uniform Trust Code (2000): Significant Provisions and Policy Issues, 67 MISSOURI LAW REVIEW 143 (2002)

Ohio Trust Code: The Joint Committee\u27s Proposal for its First Amendment

This article discusses the changes included in the proposed amendment. Generally, the Joint Committee decided to include in the amendment straightforward changes as to which there was a broad consensus. The discussion below addresses the proposals included in the amendment in the order of the sections of the Revised Code that are affected. Copyright Acknowledgment: This material is reprinted from the Probate Law Journal of Ohio with permission of Thomson Reuters. Copyright permission is on file