Barjona S. Meek and Roberta Meek - Page 8

                                        - 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