Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified subrogation procedures under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). [1]
Subrogation is the assumption by a third party (such as a second creditor or an insurance company) of another party's legal right to collect debts or damages. [1] It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for their own benefit. [2]
The modern rule reflected in the UTC permits co-trustees to act by majority vote. [28] Where a co-trustee is unable to be actively involved in the management of the trust due to age or illness, the remaining co-trustees can generally act on behalf of the trust "to achieve the purposes of the trust or to avoid injury to the trust property."
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett , 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress 's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution .
Additionally, the UTC incorporated provisions from smaller, more specific uniform acts related to trusts while also superseding some outdated ones (including Article VII of the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act of 1994, the Uniform Trustee and Powers Act of 1964, and the Uniform Trusts Act of 1937). [2]
There are many cases where B enjoys rights which, in equity, are enforceable against the legal owner, A. without A being a trustee, e.g. an equitable right to redeem a mortgage, equitable easements, restrictive covenants, the right to rectification, an insurer's right by subrogation to receive damages subsequently recovered by the assured: Lord ...
As the law has extended beyond such claims, unjust enrichment scholars have debated the scope of proprietary relief: that is, whether the court should recognise that (or declare that) the claimant has a beneficial or security interest in property held by the defendant (or a third party, as in the case of subrogation to extinguished rights).
About two dozen have reformed the rule, with several (Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Utah, Vermont, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) abolishing it. In some instances it is abolished except where the defendants "act in concert". [4] Some US jurisdictions have imposed limits on joint and several liability, but without completely abolishing that doctrine. For ...