Rameau A. and Phyllis A. Johnson - Page 48

                                               - 48 -                                                 

            purchasers in trust, or that these funds were held in the PLRF                            
            accounts for the purchasers' benefit.  In support of their                                
            theory, petitioners point to the language of the operative                                
            agreements.  The Administrator Agreement provides that "To the                            
            extent that Dealer receives monies for Reserves, Administrator's                          
            fees or insurance premiums, Dealer agrees to accept and hold such                         
            monies as a fiduciary in trust".  It further provides:                                    
                  All Reserves in the Escrow Account(s) shall be held for                             
                  the primary benefit of Contract holders to secure                                   
                  Dealer's performance under the Contracts and to pay for                             
                  valid claims arising under the Contracts.  Dealer shall                             
                  have no beneficial or other property interest in the                                
                  Reserves or investment income in the Escrow Accounts(s)                             
                  * * *.                                                                              
            The Escrow Agreement between the Escrow Trustees and the bank                             
            acting as escrow depository likewise recites that "the vehicle                            
            service contract entered into between a dealer in the Dealer                              
            Group and a consumer requires that a Primary Loss Reserve Fund                            
            escrow account be established for the benefit of the consumer."                           
                  The language that contracting parties use to describe the                           
            effect of their agreements may accurately reflect their                                   
            intentions, but it may also inadvertently or deliberately                                 
            misrepresent them.  In determining whether the operative                                  
            agreements create rights and obligations characteristic of a                              
            trust, we do not regard the language quoted above as controlling.                         
            See Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U.S. 328, 333-334 (1934);                          
            In re Schnitz, supra at 955-956.  Petitioners themselves do not                           





Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011