DOCSLIB.ORG

Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts George Gleason Bogert

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts George Gleason Bogert Cornell Law Review Volume 13 Article 5 Issue 2 February 1928 Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts George Gleason Bogert Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation George Gleason Bogert, Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts, 13 Cornell L. Rev. 237 (1928) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol13/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS AND UNEN- FORCIBLE EXPRESS TRUSTS GEORGE GLEASON BOGERT* It is a commonplace that courts of equity frequently base relief solely on the violation of a confidential relation. One of numerous examples of this action is to be found in the constructive trusts which are often created where a grantee has broken an oral, unenforcible promise to hold in trust for the grantor, and the grantee stood in a confidential relation to the grantor at the time of the making of the promise. The following is a typical case: A has conveyed land to B on B's oral agreement to hold it in trust for A and reconvey at A's command. A and B were in confidential relations before the deed was made. The Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of B's express promises. The retention of the land after setting up the Statute is not generally regarded as such inequitable conduct as to justify a decree that the holder is a constructive trustee. But the breach of the "confidential relation" existing between A and B is made the sole basis of a constructive trust in favor of A. The scope and rationale of this doctrine seem unsatisfactorily explained. Doubtless there is some truth in the remark of Professor Pomeroy that chancery declines to define the term "confidential relation" in order to preserve for itself complete liberty of action. It would seem, however, that sufficient freedom could be retained without shrouding the subject in the vague, conflicting generalities which now obtain. An effort will here be made to examine some of the judicial and editorial expressions on the subject and to offer a scheme of analysis which may clarify thought. Discussion is confined to the typical case outlined above. Similar will cases are excluded. Numerous other non-trust cases where confidential relationship is an important factor are not considered. To avoid the use of the cumbersome phrases, "the one trusting," "the one expressing confidence," "the confider," and the like, the word "grantor" will be used to refer to the person who has occupied the trusting or confiding end of the confidential relationship. And with like purpose the awkward phrases, "the one trusted," "the party relied upon," "the confidante," and similar words, will be *Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. 12 POMERoY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (4th ed. 1918) § 956. CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY replaced by the word "grantee" when it is desired to indicate the individual who has been the recipient of trust and confidence. In the law of trusts no extensive effort seems to have been made to keep the terms "confidential relation" and "fiduciary relation" distinct. They are generally used interchangeably.2 The quotations hereinafter given sometimes use "confidential," sometimes "fidu- "ciary." They are in fact referring to the same type of relation. Reference to a few of many judicial and editorial discussions of the meaning and theory of operation of the confidential relation doctrine will, it is believed, illustrate the prevalent confusion. Many definitions of "confidential relation" seem question-begging or so vague as to be valueless. In this class might be placed the following: "Stripped of all embellishing verbiage, it may be confidently asserted that every instance in which a confidential or fiduciary relation in fact is shown to exist will be interpreted as such... If a relation of trust and confidence exists between the parties (that is to say, where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other, or where confidence has been ac- quired and abused), that is sufficient as a predicate for relief."' "A person is said to stand in a fiduciary relation to another when ,he has rights and duties which he4 is bound to exercise for the benefit of that other person." A confidential relationship is one "in which, if a wrong arise, the same remedy exists on behalf of the injured party as would exist against a trustee on behalf of a cestui que trust."5 An important question upon which one might well expect to find light in the decisions, is whether "confidential relation" means a pre-existing state of trust and confidence or whether it may be a status arising at the time of the conveyance in question and the expression of which is consummated in the conveyance. Some judicial definitions seem broad enough to cover cases where the sole proof of the confidential relationship is the deed given on the faith of the oral promise. Thus the Supreme Court of Illinois has used these words:6 "A fiduciary relation exists in all cases in which influence has been acquired and abused. The origin of the confidence 2 Kochorimbus v. Maggos, 323 Iil. 510, 154 N. B.235(I926); Newell v. Halloran, 250 Pac. 986 (Utah, 1926); 20 R. C. L. §§ 93, 96; 39 Cyc. 182; 2 POMEROY, op. cit. supra note I, § 955. ZQuinn v. Phipps, 113 So. 49, 421 (Fla. 1927). 426 R. C. L. 93. zDick v. Albers, 243 Ill. 231, go N. E. 683 (1909). 8 Seeberger v. Seeberger, 325 Ill. 47, 51, 155 N. E. 763 (1927). CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS is immaterial. It may be moral, social, domestic, or purely personal. If the confidence is in fact reposed by the one party and accepted by the other, the relation is fiduciary, and equity will regard dealings between the parties according to the rules which apply to such relation." Some Illinois decisions appear to support the conclusion that the apparent breadth of the Illinois definition is actual. Thus, in Kocho- rimbus v. Maggos,7 the only evidence of the confidential relation between grantor and grantee was that (i) the parties had known each other for twenty years, (2) their wives were cousins, and (3) the grantor had trusted the grantee in connection with the convey- ance of the particular property in litigation. There was no proof of other business dealings between them in which the grantor had trusted the grantee. Obviously items (i)and (2) do not show a confidential relationship. But the court held that there was such relationship, apparently basing its decision on the single act of trusting out of which the litigation arose. This tendency to define the confidential relation which causes equity to act in these cases as one which existed before the conveyance or arose out of and at the 8 time of the conveyance, is also manifested in numerous other cases. There are, however, many other cases in which the grantor had, by various acts, for a longer or shorter period before the conveyance, placed reliance on the good faith and skill of the grantee, so that it could be said that there was a pre-existing status of trust and con- fidence. 9 Whether or not the existence of this relationship before the grant on an oral promise was necessary to enable equity to create a constructive trust out of the transaction, at least there was such prior intimacy in business affairs. In other decisions dominance or superiority seems to be treated as a sine qua non to the origin of a confidential relationship. It is said that the grantee must be one who overshadows the grantor, by reason of superior physical condition, maturity, experience, 7323 Ill. 510, 154 N. E. 235 (1926). 8Smith v. Sharp, 70 Calif. App. 336, 233 Pac. 374 (1925); Cameron v. Ward, 8 Ga. 245 (185o); Meheula v. Hausten, 29 Haw. 3o4 (1926); Lewis v. Ziegler, 1o5 Mo. 604, 16 S. W. 862 (I89I); Wells v. Cline, 19 Ohio App. 165 (1924); Hatcher v. Hatcher, 264 Pa. 105, 107 At1. 66o (1919). 9See, for example, Dahlgren v. Dahlgren, I Fed. (2d) 755 (C. A. Dist. Col. 1924); Cole v. Manning, 248 Pac. IO65 (Calif. 1926); Wood v. White, 123 Me. 139, 122 Atl. 177 (1923); Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 145 N. Y. 313, 39 N. E. 1057 (1895); Sinclair v. Purdy, 235 N. Y. 245, 139 N. E. 255 (1923); Broadway Bldg. Co. v. Salafia, 47 R. I. 263, 132 Atl. 527 (1926). CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY education or some other qualification. Thus, an Indiana Court has said:10 "There is no invariable rule for determining the existence of a fiduciary relationship, but it would appear from the de- cisions that there must be not only confidence of the one in the other, but there must exist a certain inequality, dependence, weakness of age, of mental strength, business intelligence, knowledge of the facts involved, or other conditions giving to one advantage over the other." And a Utah court has recently made the following statement:" "The doctrine rests upon the principle of inequality between the parties, and implies a position of superiority occupied by one of the parties over the other. Mere confidence in one person by another is not sufficient alone to constitute a fiduciary relationship. The confidence must be reposed by one under such circumstances as to create a corresponding duty, either legal or moral, upon the part of the other to observe the con- fidence, and it must result in a situation where as a matter of fact there is superior influence on one side and dependence on the other."'1 In numerous cases courts have laid emphasis on lack of equality between the parties as proving a confidential relationship,13 and sometimes lack of dominance or overweening influence has been treated as a reason for refusing to find a confidential relation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1928 Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts George Gleason Bogert Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation George Gleason Bogert, "Confidential Relations and Unenforcible Express Trusts," 13 Cornell Law Quarterly 237 (1928). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS AND UNEN- FORCIBLE EXPRESS TRUSTS GEORGE GLEASON BOGERT* It is a commonplace that courts of equity frequently base relief solely on the violation of a confidential relation. One of numerous examples of this action is to be found in the constructive trusts which are often created where a grantee has broken an oral, unenforcible promise to hold in trust for the grantor, and the grantee stood in a confidential relation to the grantor at the time of the making of the promise. The following is a typical case: A has conveyed land to B on B's oral agreement to hold it in trust for A and reconvey at A's command. A and B were in confidential relations before the deed was made. The Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of B's express promises. The retention of the land after setting up the Statute is not generally regarded as such inequitable conduct as to justify a decree that the holder is a constructive trustee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2018 The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements David Dittfurth St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation David Dittfurth, The Texas Constructive Trust and Its Peculiar Requirements, 50 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 447 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TEXAS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND ITS PECULIAR REQUIREMENTS David Dittfurth" I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 447 II. THESIS .............................................. 448 III. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST MECHANICS ........................ 451 A . JudicialR em edy ........................................................................ 451 B. Statutory Rem edies ................................................................... 452 IV. THE THREE-ELEMENT RULE ........................................................... 454 A. KCM Financial, LLC v. Bradshaw...................454 B . K insel v. L indsey ...................................................................... 458 V. THE FUNCTION OF WRONGDOING..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Orphans' Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County. Mckee Estate
    83 Pa. D. & C. 492 Page 1 3 Fiduc.Rep. 274, 83 Pa. D. & C. 492, 1953 WL 4499 (Pa.Orph.) Orphans' Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County. Charities 37(1) McKee Estate 75k37(1) Most Cited Cases No. 654. Distribution of assets of a charitable trust cy pres was delayed for a five year period during which income was to April term, 1902. be applied under a scholarship plan authorized by the audit- February 6, 1953. ing judge and by which the court retains supervisory con- trols of a fund for a limited period of years "in order to per- **1 *493 Exceptions to adjudication. mit the situation to crystallize." West Headnotes Charities 37(6) Wills 618 75k37(6) Most Cited Cases 409k618 Most Cited Cases Where it is clear from a will as a whole that testator's intent The fact that no beneficiary is named to receive and enjoy is primarily charitable, a provision that the fund is to be surplus income earned by testator's residuary estate during used for the specific charitable purposes outlined and for the life of certain of his descendants does not violate any "no other purpose", does not prevent the application of the rule of law where it is clear from the will as a whole that the doctrine of cy pres, unless accompanied by restraints upon surplus income is to be accumulated for the benefit of a alienation, forfeiture or reverter clauses. charity. Charities 37(8) Charities 4 75k37(8) Most Cited Cases 75k4 Most Cited Cases Where a testator who was a Negro and military man left his A gift to charity is not rendered invalid where it vests imme- residuary estate of approximately $1,000,000 for the pur- diately upon testator's death because possession and enjoy- pose of founding and maintaining an inter-racial school for ment are postponed during the life of certain of testator's orphan boys desiring naval training, and the fund is insuffi- descendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Must the Remedy at Law Be Inadequate Before a Constructive Trust Will Be Impressed?
    St. John's Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Volume 25, May 1951, Number 2 Article 6 Must the Remedy at Law Be Inadequate Before a Constructive Trust Will Be Impressed? St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1951] NOTES AND COMMENT ing has never been held to be in this category. The choice of program and set and the failure or success of a broadcaster has been left to the public. The approval or rejection of the Commission's decision will decide whether or not these same principles will apply to color telecasts. Whatever the decision of the court, and whichever system of color television broadcasting is finally approved, the controversy will at last have the finality of a decision of the United States Su- preme Court. There will have been a substantial contribution to a new field of law-television law. Under this law the industry will grow and perfect itself. In this way there will best be served the "public interest, convenience, or necessity." X MUST THIE REMEDY AT LAw BE INADEQUATE BEFORE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST WILL BE IMPRESSED? Introduction Generally speaking, a constructive trust is a trust by operation of law, which arises contrary to intention 1 against one, who by fraud, commission
    [Show full text]
  • Beware the Constructive Trust Claim
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Beware The Constructive Trust Claim Law360, New York (October 13, 2010) -- Faced with the prospect of little recovery at some distant point in the future, larger unsecured creditors are using the remedy of a constructive trust to target specific property and to attempt to obtain a full recovery superior to all other claimants, including senior secured creditors. Even if lacking in merit, the mere assertion of a constructive trust claim may prove to be an impediment in getting past an objection to plan confirmation based on the demand that the unresolved constructive trust claim be separately classified. The ultimate resolution of the claimant’s entitlement to a constructive trust remedy, including the procedure to attack it, depends on the circuit in which the bankruptcy case is pending. The Basic Law as to the Remedy of a Constructive Trust “A constructive trust is an involuntary equitable trust created as a remedy to compel the transfer of property from the person wrongfully holding it to the rightful owner.” In re Real Estate Associates Ltd. Partnership Litig., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “The imposition of a constructive trust requires: (1) the existence of res (property or some interest in property); (2) the right of the complaining party to that res; and (3) some wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party who is not entitled to it.” See Burlesci v.
    [Show full text]
  • Original 10/16/2018
    ORIGINAL 10/16/2018 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA IN THE STATE OF MONTANA A Private for-profit governmental services Corporation STATE OF MONTANA - DUN AND BRAD #945782027 ) Case # D DST) A private registered legal business entity A subsidiary corporation of UNITED STATES Corporation A De Facto for profit Governmental Services Corporation'FILED ) OCT 1 5 vS 2018 Ed" Smith DARRIN LELPAD REI3ER dba CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA An artificial entity created through fraud, and Unlawful Conversion of natural Name by the STATE OF MONTANA Unlawfully Convicted, the man being involuntarily held as surety appearing by special appearance of Darrin Leland; of family of Reber A Living Soul, A man of GOD, Bondservant of Christ, Non Personam, Sui Juris a Non-representative/Non-agent CC: US Army Provost Marshal General Notified in Writing CC: US Commerce Secretary Notified in Writing U.S.C. Title 18 242: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This is a Living Testimony in form of an Affidavit; a Challenge of my Rights, Status, Standing &Jurisdiction; a Notice of Discovery of Fraud and Impropriety; a Writ of Habeas Corpus; a Demand for Remedy; and a Claim for Compensation Notice to principle is notice to agent, Notice to agent is notice to principle. I hereby pray to God for relief and command the administrator as public servant of"We the People" to read this thoroughly and with comprellension, this document is of a very serious nature and is not frivolous. Page 1 of 87 There will be no presumptions or assumptions, no Tacit agreements, no waiver of rights, no hearsay, no lawyering or attornment from the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. V. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL
    09/28/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 23, 2020 Session ELIZABETH KERR ET AL. v. LYDIA HENDERSON ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Johnson County No. 7226 John C. Rambo, Chancellor No. E2020-00112-COA-R3-CV In this case involving the inheritance of an investment account, the three plaintiffs filed a complaint in September 2016, asserting, inter alia, that a letter executed by their father prior to his 2007 death had operated to create an express trust concerning the account, for which their stepmother had acted as trustee with the understanding that the plaintiffs were to be the beneficiaries of the account after her death. The plaintiffs alternatively sought imposition of a constructive trust. The plaintiffs’ stepmother, who is the subject decedent in this action, had died in April 2016. The plaintiffs initially named as defendants the co- executors of the decedent’s estate, as well as the financial institution holding the investment account. The trial court subsequently entered agreed orders to dismiss the financial institution as a party and to substitute as defendants the decedent’s three adult children from a previous marriage. Upon competing motions for summary judgment and following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that an express trust had been created by the writings of the plaintiffs’ father and that, alternatively, a constructive trust should be imposed based on the combined writings and actions of the plaintiffs’ father and the decedent. The defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the trial court denied following a hearing upon finding in part that new evidence submitted by the defendants should not be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code
    D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY UNIFORM TRUST CODE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MARCH 10, 2000 INTERIM DRAFT UNIFORM TRUST CODE WITHOUT PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. UNIFORM TRUST CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. ............................................................ 1 SECTION 102. SCOPE. ................................................................... 1 SECTION 103. DEFINITIONS. ............................................................. 1 SECTION 104. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. ...................................... 4 SECTION 105. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES. ............................................... 5 SECTION 106. NOTICE. .................................................................. 5 SECTION 107. COMMON LAW OF TRUSTS. ................................................ 6 SECTION 108. CHOICE OF LAW. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Declaratory Judgment Actions in Probate
    North Dakota Law Review Volume 46 Number 3 Article 2 1969 Use of Declaratory Judgment Actions in Probate Shirley A. Webster Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Webster, Shirley A. (1969) "Use of Declaratory Judgment Actions in Probate," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 46 : No. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol46/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USE OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, ACTIONS IN PROBATE SHIRLEY A WEBSTER* An action for a declaratory judgment is an extremely useful procedure in probate. Probate administration gives rise to complex problems involving every conceivable kind of property. The intertwined and often con- flicting rights of the distributees, heirs and creditors create uncer- tainties which can delay the closing of administration. A prompt and final determination of these problems is most desirable from the point of view of the fiduciary, his attorney, the persons interested in the estate and the general public. A fiduciary is often confronted with problems as to the inter- pretation of a will, determination of who are heirs or distributees, questions of priority of claims, title and rights to property, abate- ment of bequests and many other matters. The parties interested do not have all of the information held by the fiduciary and are not in a position to see the overall picture of the estate.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of APPEALS of TENNESSEE at JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 13, 2015 Session ROBERT W. MILLS v. NITA D. MILLS, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH1301272 Arnold B. Goldin, Chancellor ________________________________ No. W2014-00855-COA-R3-CV – June 24, 2015 _________________________________ This case involves various causes of action related to the administration of an estate, specifically, the executor‘s action in failing to fund a residuary trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that no assets remained in the estate to fund the residuary trust, the expiration of the statute of limitations, and laches. Although we rely on different grounds, we affirm the trial court‘s order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P. J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., and KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., joined. Lee S. Saunders and Robert Steven Butler, Somerville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert W. Mills. Kacey L. Faughnan, Edward T. Autry, and Joseph B. Reafsnyder, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Nita D. Mills, and James Johnson. OPINION Background On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff/Appellant Robert W. Mills (―Appellant‖) filed a Complaint to Compel Disclosure of Residual Trust or Alternatively for Declaratory Judgment and Judicial Estoppel, For Equitable Relief, For Constructive Trust to Prevent Unjust Enrichment, For Resulting Trust, For Accounting and for Injunction against Appellees Nita D. Mills (―Ms. Mills‖ or ―Defendant Mills‖), Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of William B.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS by OPERATION of LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014
    Page 1 of 4 N.C.P.I.—Civil 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW—PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY). GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME JUNE 2014 ------------------------------ 865.65 TRUSTS BY OPERATION OF LAW1 — PURCHASE MONEY RESULTING TRUST (REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY).2 The (state number) issue reads: "[Is] [Was] (identify property) held under a purchase money resulting trust by (name alleged trustee)?" You will note that in this issue I have used the word "trust." A trust is a legal relationship between persons. A trust exists when one person acquires property under circumstances where he incurs a legal duty to handle that property in a particular way so as to benefit another person. A 1 Trusts created by operation of law are classified into resulting trusts and constructive trusts. "[T]he creation of a resulting trust involves the application of the doctrine that valuable consideration rather than legal title determines the equitable title resulting from a transaction; whereas a constructive trust ordinarily arises out of the existence of fraud, actual or presumptive - usually involving the violation of a confidential or fiduciary relation - in view of which equity transfers the beneficial title to some person other than the holder of the legal title. Also, a resulting trust involves a presumption or supposition of law of an intention to create a trust, where as a constructive trust arises independent of any actual or presumed intention of the parties and is usually imposed contrary to the actual intention of the trustee." Bowen v. Darden, 241 N.C. 11, 13-14, 84 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1954).
    [Show full text]