The civil-law essence of trust management

In this article various viewpoints are considered on the nature of relationship on trust property management. The position of civilians, who consider relationships on trust property management as particular proprietary legal relationships, which are different from property rights, is crucially comprehended. As opposed to a holder of proprietary rights, a trust manager acts neither in his own interest, nor with the view of satisfaction of his own needs by property using. Meanwhile property, changing its composition, continues being assigned to trust management. Actions of the manager on the property given to him are within the contract of trust management, thereat the manager, coming into relationship with a third party, has to inform the third party about his own status. Being an authorized person in absolute legal relationship with a third party on the property he has, the trust manager is provided with an opportunity of absolute protection of his own property rights, demanding every elimination of these rights violation. In this case the capacity of a trust manager is similar to the capacity of a leaseholder, a mortgagee and other persons, possessing property under law or contract (article 305, Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Absence of such a feature as perpetuity indicates against the description of rights of the trust manager as property rights. Existence of perpetuity rights is restricted by the currency of contract (no more than 5 years). And the founder of management has an opportunity to renounce the treaty provided he makes the contracted reward payment to the trust manager. Besides, rights of the trust manager are not called property rights by the law. The mentioned arguments indicate the obligation nature of relations on trust property management. In this article it is indicated that legal relationship of trust management contract falls into the category of civil obligations of service rendering, because the subject of this contract is actual and legal operations on property management, which do not aim at creating any things or processing them. A conclusion is drawn that the owner does not delegate authorization of trust manager on property management; it is done by the contract of trust property management, where certain borders of good behaviour towards the property, owned by the founder of management, are established. At the same time these boundaries restrict his property rights. It's noticed that legal relationship on trust property management does not have personal trust feature, the name of the institution, indeed, was formed historically (as opposed to trust property). In this article a conclusion is drawn that the structure study of trust management along with the model, based on the commission contract, as an «indirect representation» has only classification meaning

Keywords

Authors

References