- 43 -
Foster City residence. See, e.g., Bainbridge v. Stoner,106 P.2d
423, 427 (Cal. 1940) (discussing equitable ownership arising by
virtue of express, resulting, and constructive trusts).
Petitioners argue that they considered all the members of
their immediate family to own the residence. They also point to
Fuad’s testimony that he considered the Mahmoud Daya family to be
the owners of the Foster City residence. Fuad’s testimony,
however, was contradictory at times. He also testified regarding
the Foster City residence: “That’s my house, also * * * I bought
it. My name is on it.” The record as a whole suggests that Fuad
was interested in helping his brother, Mahmoud, and Mahmoud’s
family and that he thereby purchased the Foster City residence
with Mahmoud so that the family would have a place to live. It
does not follow that Fuad held bare legal title and that Gabriel
and Morhaf held an equitable interest in the residence.
Although petitioners may have contributed toward the mortgage
payments and property taxes due on the Foster City residence and
resided in the home, these facts are insufficient to establish
that petitioners held the benefits and burdens of ownership such
that they could be considered equitable owners of the residence.
See Colston v. Burnet, 59 F.2d 867, 869-870 (D.C. Cir. 1932),
affg. 21 B.T.A. 396 (1930); Bainbridge v. Stoner, supra.
Petitioners did not contribute to the downpayment on the
residence, the record provides no evidence that petitioners made
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011