Research On The Ownership Of The Trust Property

The trusts which stemmed from the Common Law System ,has been accepted and exercised by more and more Civil Law Countries . The property management system lies especially in that, the property is managed to separate the disposition right form benefited right. Transferring property and unique functions such as management, long-term planning property and social public service are the functions of the trusts. Meanwhile, the debate about trust property right , as the core of trust system has been continuing . Our country also issues "Trust Law". Trust Law of our country basically inherits the basic idea of the Anglo-American trust law. But in the question of trust property ownership, our country takes the attitude of avoiding it instead of adopting"Dual Ownership"theory. How to decide the ownership of the trust property is very necessary, no matter in theory or practice. In order to make the trust system acceptable in the Civil Law System countries, the scholars in these countries, including the Chinese scholars made profound investigations focusing on the nature of trust. Following are some main viewpoints. This paper introduces and evaluates one by one those viewpoints, which are somewhat reasonable but not completely convincible. This thesis uses the theory analytical and historical analytical method, starting with the history origin of trust law of the Common Law System. This thesis also analyzes the essence of the trustee's legal title and the beneficiaries'equitable title, pointing out the trust property ownership. Problem can be explained and solved with the real right theory of the Civil Law clearly. It is also demonstrated that, the trustee's management disposition right and the beneficiaries'benefited right are restrictive real rights, which are separated from the ownership of the client. So, the ownership of the trust property should be belongs to the client. The definition of trust is not exactly. Trust Law of our country confuses trust with commission. The intervention powers of client are too large.