- 10 - Petitioner has argued that the LECC agreement with the guaranteed students required that the guaranteed tuition be placed into a set-aside escrow account. However, there is no credible evidence that the agreement between petitioner and the guaranteed students required petitioner to create an escrow or trust arrangement. There was no written escrow agreement between petitioner and the guaranteed students. The only reliable evidence of the terms of the guaranteed review course is the LECC brochure. The LECC brochure contains the statement that petitioner will refund tuition to students enrolled on the guaranteed basis if they fail the bar examination. There is nothing in the brochure that indicates in any way that petitioner intended to place the tuition into an escrow or trust account or would not use the tuition before the students passed the bar examination. We hold that petitioner was not required by his agreement with the guaranteed students to establish an escrow or trust account to hold the tuition payments. There was no contractual restriction on petitioner’s use of the $30,000 tuition during 1991, and any restriction on petitioner’s use of the tuition was imposed by petitioner himself. Petitioner contends that he created an oral trust to hold the guaranteed tuition until the students took the bar examination. Under California law, an express trust in personal property may be made by an oral declaration of trust. Cal. Prob.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011