- 31 -
449.
Nothing in the record suggests that Mahmoud intended to
transfer beneficial interest of the money to Gabriel. See Lehmann
v. Kamp, 77 Cal. Rptr. 910 (Ct. App. 1969). Instead, the record
supports a finding that the money was deposited into the household
account for the limited purpose of paying household expenses.
Under these circumstances, Gabriel, as owner of that account, was
acting as a trustee for the benefit of his family.
A trust contemplates a fiduciary relationship with
respect to property, wherein the person holding title is
held to an equitable obligation to deal with or use the
property for the benefit of another. The legal
relationship results from a manifestation of an intent
to create a trust, and the relationship is thereafter
classified by the nature of that intent. [Askew v.
Resource Funding, Ltd., 156 Cal. Rptr. 208, 210 (Ct.
App. 1979) (citing Bogert, The Law of Trusts and
Trustees, sec. 1, at 1-3 (2d ed. 1965)).]
Here, the intent to create a trust relationship, if not
specifically expressed by the parties, can be inferred from the
facts and circumstances surrounding their relationship and the
nature of the household account. See id. (distinguishing between
express and resulting trust and finding it unnecessary to dwell on
the precise nature of the trust where the indicia of a trust
relationship are evident). Thus, Gabriel was not the equitable
owner of the money, and it should not be credited to him for
purposes of determining his contributions to the support of
Mahmoud.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011