- 27 -
governed by the same rules.” Hancock v. Hancock, supra.
Consequently, although petitioner’s case is predicated on the
creation of implied resulting trusts upon creation of the limited
partnership, the characterization of the implied trust as implied
or constructive would appear to make little difference under this
statute.
Under Georgia law, extrinsic evidence bearing on the
parties’ intent is admissible to establish the existence of an
oral trust regarding land. See Harrell v. Harrell, 290 S.E.2d
906, 907 (Ga. 1982) (involving the substantially identical
predecessor statute to Georgia Code section 53-12-26), in which
the Georgia Supreme Court stated:
circumstances may be offered as evidence of an
intention (whether or not expressly articulated by each
party) that title shall vest in one and beneficial
ownership in the other. The scope of such evidence
includes all of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the transaction. The ultimate inquiry is whether there
was, in truth, a mutual understanding, not whether such
an understanding was expressed in plain and unambiguous
terms.
The Georgia Supreme Court in Harrell acknowledged that
“hidden beneficial ownership can be pernicious” and create
uncertainty, but nevertheless concluded that the relevant
statutory provisions “appear to sanction hidden trusts, and we
must be guided by the law as given by the General Assembly.” Id.
at 907-908; see also McKinney v. Burns, 31 Ga. 295 (1860) (parol
evidence was competent to establish, with regard to beneficial
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011