- 14 -
students passed the bar examination) of the trust, to establish a
trust is irrelevant. Petitioner’s position that he was the
settlor of the purported trust presupposes that he was the owner
of the trust property at the time of the declaration of trust,
because only an owner of property is able to declare an intent to
hold that property in trust. See Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15200(a).
It has not been shown that the guaranteed students were the
settlors of the trust and transferred the tuition payments with
the intention that the tuition would be held in trust until the
bar examination results were announced. Petitioner has not
presented any evidence that the guaranteed students intended to
create a trust or escrow for future payment of the $30,000
tuition to petitioner if they passed the bar examination. The
guaranteed students paid the tuition for the LECC course during
1991. There has been no showing of an intention to restrict
petitioner’s use of the tuition money until the students passed
the bar examination. Rather, the students expected that
petitioner would refund the money if they failed.
Finally, we note that we are not certain that the $50,000
deposited into the World Savings account was tuition held in
trust for an LECC course offered during 1990. Petitioner
contends that he withdrew $50,000 of tuition payments from the
Sanwa account and deposited the money into the alleged trust
account at World Savings. That testimony is not supported by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011