I am not a trust expert, but I'm instinctively dubious that this would
work. You'd need to find someone who knew. My guess, though, is that
the trustees would have great discretion, and only a court could review
it -- and that it wouldn't want to. I also suspect that it might be one
thing to have an honorary trust for something inanimate, but here the
device would really be to benefit people, the DN holders, and that this
might not be kosher. But like I said, this isn't my area.
Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> Michael,
> > A third-party beneficiary agreement is a
> > deal by which two parties agree to provide a benefit for someone
> > else. If either party reneges, the third party can sue even though
> > he didn't sign the contract or put up any money for the benefit.
>
> Would an honorary trust do as well? "...A trust for a noncharitable
> purpose which is valid despite the absence of an ascertainable
> (i.e., human) beneficiary. These include trusts for the care of an
> animal and trusts for other noncharitable purposes such as the
> maintenance of a cemetery lot" -- or a domain name.
>
> kerry
>
> A philosophical problem has the form: I don't know my way
> about. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot there. I'm elsewhere. <--
