- 8 -
because a mere contract to convey property is not a trust. Reagh
v. Kelley, 89 Cal. Rptr. 425, 532 (Ct. App. 1970); Huebener v.
Chinn, 207 P.2d 1136, 1143 (Or. 1949); Restatement, Trusts 2d,
sec. 13 (1959). But we do not think that this case can be
disposed of by such a separation of the two phases of the
transactions involved herein. The two phases, which occurred on
the same day,5 are inextricably intertwined and indeed the
overall thrust of petitioners' argument is founded on this
element. Security-First Natl. Bank v. Wright, 119 P.2d 25, 28
(Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1941); see also Reagh v. Kelley, supra.
Reading the trust document and purchase agreement together, the
trust does not fail for lack of certainty as to the trust
property. See Reiss v. Reiss, 114 P.2d 718, 722 (Cal. Dist. Ct.
App. 1941).
Thus, we find inapposite those cases cited by petitioners
that hold there is no trust in the absence of certain
identifiable property. See In re Ralston's Estate, 37 P.2d 76
(Cal. 1934) (trust failed for lack of sufficient certainty as to
the beneficiaries); Lefrooth v. Prentice, 259 P. 947, 952 (Cal.
1927) (trust failed for lack of delivery of trust property);
Balian v. Balian's Market, 119 P.2d 426, 429 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App.
5 There is no evidence to show the order of execution, but we
are satisfied that, under the circumstances herein, such evidence
would not be relevant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011