Appointment of property managers — welfare guardian — family trust — reverse mortgage — role of a trustee — role of a property manager —Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, s 53, sch 1. The applicants were the property managers for their parents, and also trustees of the family trust which held ownership of their parent's home, with one of the siblings also serving as welfare guardian. This hearing was to reappoint only two of the three siblings as property managers, and to make a determination on the issue of whether the applicants had actual power to enter into the reverse mortgage that they had applied for previously. In order to obtain the reverse mortgage the borrowers had to be over 60 years of age, so the siblings co-signed the mortgage agreement with their parents. Usually, a reverse mortgage would be entered into by a couple relating to a house that they owned, but in this case the matter was complicated by the fact that the parents were not the owners of the house, the trust was. The matter was further complicated by the fact that it was unclear whether the money obtained pursuant to the mortgage was deposited into a bank account administered by the siblings in their capacity of trustees of the family trust, or into a bank account owned by the parents but administered by the siblings in their capacity of property managers. The Court found that there had been a blurring of the boundaries between the roles of property manager and trustee, and despite the intentions of the siblings to enter into the mortgage agreement in their capacity as property managers, what in fact occurred was that they had entered into the agreement in their capacity of trustees and then used their discretion as trustees to advance the money to their parents. The Court stated that what should have occurred, and what should occur if such a situation arises in the future, is that the parents could have entered into a reverse mortgage with the siblings, as trustees, listed as guarantors of the mortgage. The money should have been paid into the parent's bank account and then administered by the siblings as property managers on their parents' behalf. The Court also found that the substantive applications were non-contentious and made an order reappointing two of the three siblings as property managers. Judgment Date: 15 October 2024 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *