Advertisement

“Dual Ownership” Versus “Absolute Ownership”: A Comparative Analysis

  • Zhen Meng
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)

Abstract

This Chapter provides a comparative analysis on the diverse approaches in which the civil law countries deal with the issue regarding the ownership of trust property. The basic concepts of the “dual ownership” and “absolute ownership”, and the conflict between these two concepts are elaborated in the first section of this Chapter. Then, this Chapter outlines the different scenarios regarding the ownership of trust property in China. Specifically, it examines various conventional interpretations of Article 2 of the Chinese Trust Law suggested by Chinese legal scholars. Further, this Chapter moves on to explain the approaches adopted by the so-called “mixed jurisdictions” such as Scotland, Quebec, Louisiana, and South Africa; also, the trust laws in East Asian jurisdictions such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are overviewed. This Chapter ends with a critical summary of the existing debates.

References

  1. Arai M (2013) Trust law in Japan: inspiring changes in Asia, 1922 and 2006. In: Ho L, Lee R (eds) Trust law in Asian civil law jurisdictions: a comparative analysis. CUP, New York, pp 27–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolgár V (1953) Why no trusts in the civil law? Am J Comp L 2(2):204–219Google Scholar
  3. Buckland WW (2012) A manual of Roman private law. CUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron E, de Waal M (2002) Honore’s South African law of trusts, 5th edn. JutaGoogle Scholar
  5. Cumyn M (2012) Reflections regarding the diversity of ways in which the trust has been received or adapted in civil law countries. In: Smith L (ed) Re-imaging the trust: trusts in civil law. CUP, New York, pp 6–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Waal M (2001) In search of a model for the introduction of the trust into a civilian context. Stellenbosch Law Rev 12:63–85Google Scholar
  7. Graham T, Steeny P (2012) The Chinese trust. Trusts Trustees 18(1):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gretton GL (2000) Trusts without equity. Int Comp Law Q 49:599–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hahlo HR (1961) The trust in South African Law. S Afr Law J 78:195Google Scholar
  10. Ho L (2004) The reception of trust in Asia: emerging Asian principles of trust? Sin J Legal Stud 2004:287–304Google Scholar
  11. Ho L (2010) China trust law and practice since 2001. Trusts Trustees 16(3):124–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho L (2012) Trust laws in China. In: Smith L (ed) Re-imaging the trust: trusts in civil law. CUP, New York, pp 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honor T (1987) Making law bind: essays legal and philosophical. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Honoré T (2003) Trusts: the inessentials. In: Getzler J (ed) Rationalizing property, equity and trusts: essays in Honour of Edward Burn. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu G, Chen Q (2006) Quanneng fenge: lun woguo xintuofa zhi xintuo caichan suoyouquan (Separating the right and the power: trust property proprietary rights in Chinese trust law). J Zhengzhou Univ 39(6):84–88Google Scholar
  16. Hudson A (2014) Equity and trusts, 8th edn. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawson FH (1955) A common lawyer looks at the civil law. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee R (2009) Conceptualizing the Chinese trust. Int Comp Law Q 58(3):655–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lepaulle P (1927) Civil law substitutes for trusts. Yale Law J 36:1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorio KV (1982) Louisiana trusts: The experience of a civil law jurisdiction with the Trust. La Law Rev 42:1721–1739Google Scholar
  21. Lou J (2012) Xintuo caichan de dulixing yu xintuocaichan guishu de guanxi (Relationship between the trust property segregation and the ownership of trust property). J Guangdong Soc Sci 2:242–250Google Scholar
  22. Martin EF (1990) Louisiana’s law of trusts: 25 years after adoption of the trust code. La Law Rev 50:501Google Scholar
  23. McAuley M (2012) Truth and reconciliation: notions of property in Louisiana’s civil and trust codes. In: Smith L (ed) Re-imaging the trust: trusts in civil law. CUP, New York, pp 119–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meng Z (2015) Should China clarify the ownership of trust assets? A social network perspective. Trusts Trustees 21(5):492–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meng Z (2016) Legal certainty and trusts in China. In: Fenwick M, Wrbka S (eds) Legal certainty in a contemporary context: private and criminal Law perspectives. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pettit PH (1997) Equity and the law of trusts, 8th edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Ping’an Trust and McKinsey (2013) The coming transformation of China’s trust industry: China trust industry report 2013. http://www.mckinseychina.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mckinsey-china-the-coming-transformation-of-chinas-trust-industry.pdf?5c8e08. Accessed 21 Feb 2015
  28. Qu CZ (2003) The doctrinal basis of the trust principles in China’s Trust Law. Real Prop Probate Trust J 38(2):345–376Google Scholar
  29. Riddall J (1999) The law of trusts, 4th edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Sese A (1999) Tairiku houiki shintakuhou saishin doukou (Latest trend of trust law in civil law jurisdictions). J Jpn Inst Int Bus Law 40(10):1507–1513Google Scholar
  31. Sese A (2009) Comparative studies on the Trust Law of the PRC: taking into consideration of the enactment of the PRC Property Law and amendment to Japanese Trust Law, English and the U.S. Trust Law. Sci Rep Kyoto Prefectural Univ Public Policy 1:63–93Google Scholar
  32. Schenkel K (2009) Trust law and the title-split: a beneficial perspective. Umkc Law Rev 78:181–214Google Scholar
  33. Smith L (2009) Trust and patrimony. Estates Trusts Pensions J 28:332–354Google Scholar
  34. Smith L (ed) (2013) The worlds of the trust. CUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Vicari A (2012) Country reports: San Marino. Colum J Eur Law Online 18:82. http://www.cjel.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/countryreport_sanmarino81–92.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2015
  36. Wang Y (2008) Lun xintuofa yu wuquanfa de guanxi: xintuofa zai minfa faxi zhong de wenti (Relationship between trust law and property law: toward the questions of trust law in civil law system). J Peking Univ (Philos Soc Sci) 6:93–101Google Scholar
  37. Watanabe H (2010) ‘Trusts without equity’ and prospects for the introduction of trusts into European civil law systems. Q Rev Corp Law Soc 7:187–200Google Scholar
  38. Waters D (2006) The future of the trust (Part I). J Int Trust Corp Plan 13(4):179–223Google Scholar
  39. Watkin TG (2007) Changing concepts of ownership in English law during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In: Dixon M, Griffiths GLIH (eds) Contemporary perspectives on property, equity and trust law. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Wen S, Feng X (2005) Lun xintuo caichan suoyouquan (Ownership of trust property). Wuhan Univ J (Philos Soc Sci) 58(2):203–209Google Scholar
  41. What is A Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”)? http://www.hektarreit.com/faq.php?question=1. Accessed 15 June 2015
  42. Wu Y-C (2013) Trust law in South Korea: developments and challenges. In: Ho L, Lee R (eds) Trust law in Asian civil law jurisdictions: a comparative analysis. CUP, New York, pp 46–62Google Scholar
  43. Yiannopoulos A (1999) Trust and the civil law: the Louisiana experience. In: Palmer VV (ed) Louisiana: microcosm of a mixed jurisdiction. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, p 213Google Scholar
  44. Yu H (2010) Lun yingmei xintuo caichan shuangchong suoyouquan zai zhongguo de bentuhua (Localization of dual ownership of trust property in China). Mod Law Sci 32(3):159–168Google Scholar
  45. Zhang C (2007) Woguo xintuo caichan suoyouquan guishu de taidu jiqi fali shenshi (An examination of the Chinese attitude towards the ownership of trust property). J Gansu Inst Polit Sci Law 91:7–14Google Scholar
  46. Zhang R (2015) A better understanding of dual ownership of trust property and its introduction in China. Trusts Trustees 21(5):501–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law, School of Intellectual PropertyNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations