Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

beneficial interest

Read a random definition: infangthief

A quick definition of beneficial interest:

Beneficial interest refers to a right to receive money or use things that belong to a trust. This means that even though someone with a beneficial interest doesn't own the property, they still get some benefit from it. Trustees and other people who work for the trust only have the job of managing the property, while people with a beneficial interest get to enjoy the benefits of it.

A more thorough explanation:

Beneficial interest refers to a right to income or use of assets in a trust. It means that a person has the right to benefit from the property, but they do not own the property itself. This is different from trustees and other agents of the trust who only have managing duties.

For example, let's say that John creates a trust and puts his house in it. He names his daughter, Sarah, as the beneficiary of the trust. This means that Sarah has a beneficial interest in the house. She has the right to live in the house or receive rental income from it, but she does not own the house itself.

Another example is a charitable trust. In this case, the beneficiaries are the charities that will receive the assets of the trust. The people who manage the trust are the trustees, and they have a duty to make sure that the assets are used for the benefit of the charities.

These examples illustrate how a person can have a beneficial interest in a trust without actually owning the property. It is important to note that the terms of the trust will determine the extent of the beneficiary's rights and the duties of the trustees.

bench warrant | beneficial owner

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.