- 9 -
1962); Kane v. Johnson, 73 N.E.2d 321, 324 (Ill. 1947). Unless
there is evidence that a gift was intended from the payor to the
person taking title, it is assumed that the payor intended to
keep the beneficial interests of the property for which he or she
paid. See Prassa v. Corcoran, supra. The fact that the payor
borrowed from the person who took title does not prevent a
resulting trust from arising. See Towle v. Wadsworth, 35 N.E. 73
(Ill. 1893). Nor does the fact that the agreement with respect
to the loan and purchase of the property was oral rather than
written. See id. Parol evidence may be used to prove a
resulting trust. See Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 59, sec. 9 (1975) (now
740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 80/9 (West 1993)); Kohlhaas v. Smith, 97
N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ill. 1951). A resulting trust arises at the
instant title is taken, or not at all. See Prassa v. Corcoran,
supra.
The burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish a
resulting trust, and, because recorded legal title is being
rebutted, the standard of proof is “clear, convincing and
unmistakable.” In re Estate of Wilson, 410 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ill.
1980). A resulting trust will not be sustained where the
“evidence is doubtful or capable of reasonable explanation upon
any theory other than the existence of a trust”. Kohlhaas v.
Smith, supra at 776.
Petitioner has offered the claim filed by Ms. Scott and the
decision of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court approving
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011