涉外生前信託的定性與準據法

Characterization and the Law Applicable to Foreign Living Trusts

10.6199/NTULJ.202306_52(2).0004

陳榮傳(Rong-Chwan Chen)

涉外因素 ； 國際私法 ； 定性 ； 衝突規則 ； 準據法 ； 生前信託 ； 可撤銷的生前信託 ； 遺囑 ； 加州信託法 ； foreign element ； private international law ； characterization ； conflicts rule ； applicable law ； living trust (inter vivos trust) ； revocable trust ； testament (last will) ； California's trust law

臺大法學論叢

52卷2期（2023 / 06 / 01）

477 - 536

繁體中文;英文

外國生前信託的法律適用，在國際私法上是個重要問題。本文以最高法院107年度台再字第23號民事判決為基礎，分別探討其相關問題。本案的系爭生前信託契約係在美國加州就加州的財產訂立，當事人就隱匿該契約是否構成隱匿遺囑，並使繼承人喪失繼承權的問題，發生爭議。各審法院判決均認為生前信託在加州法律上即為遺囑，其成立要件的準據法依涉外民事法律適用法關於遺囑的規定，為臺灣法律，系爭生前信託契約不符合遺囑的法定要件，並非有效的遺囑。本文發現本案的各審法院未說明為何以加州法律為定性的標準，也未調查生前信託契約在加州法律上是否確為遺囑，更因為生前信託其實在加州法律上並非遺囑，其定性結論顯然錯誤。本文認為，系爭生前信託契約在涉外民事法律適用法上，應定性為未經明文規定的信託關係，並就具體爭議的問題，依其所涉及的行為的不同，分別適用債權行為或物權行為的衝突規則；此項涉外信託關係應以美國加州法律為其準據法，而依加州法律，系爭生前信託契約並非遺囑。本案的各審法院判決適用臺灣法律雖獲得相同結論，其理由論述誤謬之處，仍值得重視。作者期望透過本案的反省與研究，呼籲各界重視國際私法的學習與研究，提升臺灣涉外司法實務的裁判品質。

The law applicable to a foreign living trust is significant in private international law. Based on the Supreme Court's Judgment No. Tai-Zai 23 of 2018, this Article develops its discussion and argument. The living trust at issue was created in California, US and was funded with properties located there. The courts of all instances unanimously ruled against the assertion that hiding a living trust agreement is legally equal to hiding a last will by which an heir's right to succession is deprived. Their basis is that the living trust in question is a will under California's law and its governing law shall be ascertained according to the conflicts rule on wills in Taiwan's Choice-of-law Act. Substantively, they ruled that the living trust at issue is not a valid last will since the formal requirements of Taiwan's Civil Code were not satisfied. This Article argues that characterization is an important process in applying the conflicts rules of the forum and attention shall be paid to its details. However, the courts of all instances did neither explain why it was characterized under California's law nor investigate into the evidence to prove that California's law treats a living trust as a last will. The reasoning is deficient and erroneous because a living trust is not a last will and is not required to be probated under California's law. This Article further argues that the living trust in question shall be characterized as a trust relationship that is not provided for in Taiwan's Choice-of-law Act. The specific question that is disputed over shall be furtherly characterized as a legal relationship arising from an obligatory act or a proprietary act. The living trust in this case shall be characterized as a trust and governed by California's law. It is therefore substantively not a last will. The right conclusion was coincidentally reached unanimously by the courts of all instances on this case. Yet, sufficient attention shall be paid to the fallacies and errors in the reasonings of their judgments. It is hoped that the reflections and comments on such judgments call on stressful learning and research in private international law and promote the quality of decisions in Taiwan's international judicial practice.

1. 許兆慶(2002)。從信託之共同價值談涉外信託之準據法。國立中正大學法學集刊，6，253-285。
   連結：
2. 許兆慶(2008)。國際私法選法理論的新思維：以信託法制實體核心價值為中心。東海大學法學研究，28，139-216。
   連結：
3. 黃詩淳(2020)。信託與繼承法之交錯：以日本法為借鏡。臺大法學論叢，49(3)，929-984。
   連結：
4. 黃詩淳(2019)。美國生前信託之啟示：以信託與監護之關係為焦點。臺大法學論叢，48(2)，491-542。
   連結：
5. Bariatti, S.(2017).Classification (Characterization).Encyclopedia of Private International Law
6. Barnosky, J. J.(1995).The Incredible Revocable Living Trust.Journal of The Suffolk Academy of Law,10,1-26.
7. Beyer, G. W.(2015).Examples & Explanations: Wills, Trusts, and Estates.Wolters Kluwer.
8. Bogdan, M.,Sender, M. P.(2019).Concise Introduction to EU Private International Law.Europa Law Publishing.
9. Bonomi, A.(2017).Succession.Encyclopedia of Private International Law
10. Briggs, A.(2019).The Conflict of Laws.Oxford University Press.
11. Collins, L.(Ed.),Harris, J.(Ed.)(2012).Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws.Sweet & Maxwell.
12. d’Avout, L.(2017).Property and proprietary rights.Encyclopedia of Private International Law
13. Dölle, Hans,王澤鑑（譯）(1983)。法學上的發現。民法學說與判例研究：第 4 冊
14. Dutta, A.(2017).Trust.Encyclopedia of Private International Law
15. Engel, R. M.(2002).The Pros and Cons of Living Trusts as Compared to Wills.Estate Planning,29,155-164.
16. Feder, D. J.,Sitkoff, R. H.(2016).Revocable Trusts and Incapacity Planning: More Than Just a Will Substitute.The Elder Law Journal,24(1),1-47.
17. Halbach, E. C., Jr(2000).Uniform Acts, Restatements, and Trends in American Trust Law at Century's End.California Law Review,88(6),1877-1921.
18. Hay, P.,Borchers, P.,Freer, R.(2017).Conflict of Laws, Private International Law, Cases and Materials.West Academic.
19. Hay, P.,Borchers, P.,Symeonides, S.,Whytock, C.(2018).Conflict of Laws.West Academic.
20. Hess, A. M.(Ed.),Bogert, G. G.(Ed.)(2020).Bogert’s The Law of Trusts and Trustees.Thomson West.
21. Horton, D.(2015).In Partial Defense of Probate: Evidence from Alameda County, California.Georgetown Law Journal,103,605-664.
22. Kempster, S.(Ed.),McMillan, M.(Ed.),Meek, A.(Ed.)(2020).International Trust Disputes.Oxford University Press.
23. Liew, Y. K.(2021).Justifying Anglo-American Trusts Law.William & Mary Business Law Review,12(3),685-759.
24. Maurer, M. T.,Friedemann, J. F.(1998).Lending to Family Living Trusts.Consumer Finance Law Quarterly Report,52,198-209.
25. McCouch, G. M. P.(2018).Revocable Trusts and Fiduciary Accountability.The Elder Law Journal,26,1-34.
26. Miller, M. P.(1989).Update on Whether to Consider Using a Funded Living Trust to Avoid Probate.Estate Planning,16,140-146.
27. Moy, D. H.(2003).Living Trusts.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
28. Panico, P.(2017).International Trust Laws.Oxford University Press.
29. Penner, J. E.(2019).The Law of Trusts.Oxford University Press.
30. Rabel, E.(1958).The Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study.The University of Michigan Press.
31. Rolcik, K. A.(2007).The Complete Living Trust Kit: An Essential Guide to Control Your Estate and Easily Pass It to Your Family.Sphinx Publishing.
32. Schurr, F. A.(2018).Trusts in Civil Law Environments: Can Civil Law Jurisdictions Such As Liechtenstein Deal with Core Issues of Trust Law?.Trusts and Modern Wealth Management
33. Sharp, R. F.(2017).Living Trusts for Everyone: Why a Will Is Not the Way to Avoid Probate, Protect Heirs, and Settle Estates.Allworth Press.
34. Sitkoff, R. H.,Dukeminier, J.(2021).Wills, Trusts, and Estates.Aspen Publishing.
35. Torremans, P.(Ed.),Grušić, U.(Ed.),Heinze, C.(Ed.),Merrett, L.(Ed.),Mills, A.(Ed.),García-Castrillón, C. O.(Ed.),Tang, Z. S.(Ed.),Trimmings, K.(Ed.),Walker, L.(Ed.)(2017).Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law.Oxford University Press.
36. van Calster. G.(2021).European Private International Law: Commercial Litigation in the EU.Hart Publishing.
37. Verschraegen, B.(Ed.)(2021).International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Private International Law.Kluwer Law International.
38. Virgo, G.(2020).The Principles of Equity & Trusts.Oxford University Press.
39. Watt, G.(2020).Trusts & Equity.Oxford University Press.
40. 方嘉麟(1994).信託法之理論與實務.月旦.
41. 王志誠(2018).信託法.五南.
42. 王志誠(2018)。論境外信託準據法之選定及承認。新時代法學理論之建構與開創：劉鐵錚大法官八秩華誕祝壽論文集
43. 呂旭明(2019).跨境財富傳承與家族信託籌劃實務.哈佛人.
44. 林怡君(2018)。臺北，國立臺北大學法律學研究所。
45. 柯澤東,吳光平（增修）(2020).國際私法.元照.
46. 馬漢寶,賴淳良（修訂）(2022).國際私法：總論各論.翰蘆.
47. 許兆慶(2009).國際信託法：海牙信託公約.台灣財經法暨經濟法研究協會.
48. 許兆慶(2007)。跨國信託效力之承認：以海牙信託公約為中心。月旦法學雜誌，145，113-126。
49. 許兆慶(2005)。海牙信託公約之法律適用法則。財產法暨經濟法，3，117-169。
50. 許兆慶(2008)。跨國信託之法律衝突與法律適用。財產法暨經濟法，13，117-167。
51. 陳榮傳(2021)。離岸信託的準據法：海牙信託公約在英國法院裁判的適用。月旦民商法雜誌，71，6-28。
52. 陳榮傳(2015).國際私法實用：涉外民事案例研析.五南.
53. 陳榮傳(2005)。在外國公證的僑民遺囑。月旦法學教室，29，40-41。
54. 陳榮傳(1998).國際私法各論集.五南.
55. 曾陳明汝,曾宛如(2008).國際私法原理（上集）總論篇.新學林.
56. 曾陳明汝,曾宛如(2012).國際私法原理（續集）各論篇.新學林.
57. 劉鐵錚(2000).國際私法論叢.三民.
58. 劉鐵錚,陳榮傳(2018).國際私法論.三民.
59. 蔡華凱(2018).國際私法實例研習.三民.
60. 謝哲勝(2014).信託法.元照.