Joint Bank Account Trusts and the Protection of Older Adults from Financial Abuse: Exploring Equity’s Preference for Beneficiary Direction Over Beneficiary Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The equitable doctrine of resulting trusts plays a significant role in defining and\nallocating the rights and responsibilities of adult children and older adult parents\nwho are co-holders of joint bank accounts. Where equity deems the adult child to be a\nresulting trustee for their parent, it also imposes a rule that the adult child must follow\nthe directions of the older adult, that is, a beneficiary-direction rule. This rule suffices\nto hold to account a financially abusive adult child co-holder, but it appears to preclude\na beneficiary-protection power, that is, a power of an honest adult child co-holder to\ntake protective action, against the wishes of the older adult, to safeguard the parent\nfrom financial abuse by others. This article explores, from a Canadian perspective, but\nwith comparative aspects, the preference of equity for a beneficiary-direction rule over\na beneficiary-protection power in the context of joint bank account resulting trusts.\nWhile it is contended that it is possible for equity to recognize a beneficiary-protection\npower, by analogizing such resulting trusts to express trusts, it is ultimately concluded\nthat the preference for the beneficiary-direction rule is reasonable. That conclusion is\nreached on the basis of considerations of precedent and policy that give rise to a number\nof interconnected barriers to this analogy. However, since it can be anticipated that a\nneed for protective action might arise, it is argued that equity should respect an express\ngrant of protective power. This, in turn, has implications for lawyers and other advisors\non financial affairs and related legal matters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".