- 11 - trust for the benefit of his brother, received consideration from his brother in the form of a trust for his benefit. In this context, petitioners' attempt to convert the Court of Appeals' use of the word "if" to mean "only if" is without merit. The situations in Mahoney and Lehman are thus clearly distinguishable7 from the situation herein; McCormick and Furman received the property and furnished the consideration as trustees and received no property interest in return.8 In sum, the trust document, along with the purchase agreement, creates a valid trust under California law, with Meek as the settlor. McCormick and Furman were simply the conduit through which Meek transferred property, i.e., his partnership interest, to the trust and, in effect, fleshed out the missing link of description which would otherwise have been set forth in Schedule A of the trust document. In this connection, we note that the parties have stipulated that by virtue of the purchase agreement, Meek "sold his 83 percent partnership interest in Elgarde, Ltd. to the Meek Trust" (emphasis added). We conclude that Meek was engaged in a transaction between a grantor and 7 Similar reasoning distinguishes Ballard v. MacCallum, 101 P.2d 692 (Cal. 1940). 8 If petitioners' position herein were correct, it would seem to follow McCormick and Furman could personally be held liable on the purchase note that they furnished as trustees, a result which we think it unlikely any California court would countenance.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011