Resulting Trusts ***POWERFUL***

This is the most powerful information I have ever come across.

From Bovier's:

RESULTING TRUSTS, estates. Resulting, implied or constructive trusts, are those which arise in cases where it would be contrary to the principles of equity that be in whom the property becomes vested, should hold it otherwise than as a trustee. 2 Atk. 150.
2. As an illustration of this description of a resulting trust, may be mentioned the case of a contract made for the purchase of a real estate; on the completion of the contract, a trust immediately results to the purchaser, and the vendor becomes a trustee for him till the conveyance of the legal estate is made. Again, when an estate is purchased in the name of one person, and the purchase money is paid by another, there is a resulting trust in favor of the person who gave or paid the consideration. Willis on Tr. 55; 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, s. 40, 41; Ch. Ca. 39; 9 Mod. 78; 7 Ves. 725; 3 Hen. & Munf. 367; 1 Supp. to Ves. jr. 11; Pow. Mortg. Index, h. t.; 2 John. Ch. R. 409, 450; 3 Bibb, R. 15, 506; 4 Munf. R. 222; 1 John. Ch. Rep. 450, 582; Sugd. on Vend. ch. 15, s. 2 Cox, Ch. Rep. 93; Bac. Ab. Trusts, C; Bouv. last. Index, h. t. Vide Trusts; Use.


Anyone that can help with obtaining the material at the bottom of the definition, it would be appreciated.

[B Rookard]

How many times do I have to say it ... a resulting trust, or constructive trust ... IS NOT A TRUST.

It is an equitable remedy.

It is a misnomer to actually call it a "trust."

It is better described as a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.

It is the court saying to the person who is trying to keep the money unjustly: "you are not the person entitled to the money (or whatever) and you are holding it in trust for the rightful owner."

As I said though, it is not a trust, it's just the idea behind it is *kind of* like a trust, so that's what they call it ... it IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT a trust.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

RESULTING TRUSTS, estates. Resulting, implied or constructive trusts, are those which arise in cases where it would be contrary to the principles of equity that be in whom the property becomes vested, should hold it otherwise than as a trustee. 2 Atk. 150.
2. As an illustration of this description of a resulting trust, may be mentioned the case of a contract made for the purchase of a real estate; on the completion of the contract, a trust immediately results to the purchaser, and the vendor becomes a trustee for him till the conveyance of the legal estate is made. Again, when an estate is purchased in the name of one person, and the purchase money is paid by another, there is a resulting trust in favor of the person who gave or paid the consideration. Willis on Tr. 55; 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, s. 40, 41; Ch. Ca. 39; 9 Mod. 78; 7 Ves. 725; 3 Hen. & Munf. 367; 1 Supp. to Ves. jr. 11; Pow. Mortg. Index, h. t.; 2 John. Ch. R. 409, 450; 3 Bibb, R. 15, 506; 4 Munf. R. 222; 1 John. Ch. Rep. 450, 582; Sugd. on Vend. ch. 15, s. 2 Cox, Ch. Rep. 93; Bac. Ab. Trusts, C; Bouv. last. Index, h. t. Vide Trusts; Use.

I have to agree with Henry Franklin and John Boivier. Brian's post is like people telling me my name when my parents have already informed me about that. Or telling me I have to have a SSN when the SSA has already informed me how to dispose of it.

Thanks Henry.

[aksis]

From Bouvier's
TRUST ...
3. Trusts are either express or implied...

RESULTING TRUSTS, estates. Resulting, implied or constructive trusts...

B_rookard, I think that you will have to keep saying it... prehaps if you additinaly repeat that sun rises in the west and sets in the east that will change that as well...

Either way, you just sound like you lack the ability to determin reality from fiction...

No crime in that... but if you get violent, we will have to lock you up with the other mentaly divergent people.

Originally Posted by B Rookard

How many times do I have to say it ... a resulting trust, or constructive trust ... IS NOT A TRUST.

It is a misnomer to actually call it a "trust."

As I said though, it is not a trust, it's just the idea behind it is *kind of* like a trust, so that's what they call it ... it IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT a trust.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

You sure are working hard to convince us of that. Good thing I don't believe you. I'd believe Bouvier over you any day. I'd even believe Black's over you.

When they get a load of my actions resulting from the written Agreement, they will probably be screaming the same thing you are screaming, but at that point, it won't much matter. Their actions will have sealed their fate.

I heard someone I explained this to today say this is more powerful (but along the same lines) as the Waiver of Tort.

I needed that laugh you provided. As I said in my first post in this thread, this is the most powerful information I have ever come across.

Just posting it made you squeal like a pig. And I didn't even tell you what I was going to do with the information.

Thanks again,

[B Rookard]

Believe what you will ...

http://www.rongolini.com/trustsandes...m#Constructive

http://www.quizlaw.com/trusts_and_es...tive_trust.php

http://www.hamline.edu/personal/ksal...ills/const.htm

But a constructive trust and resultant trust are imposed by the courts ... YOU cannot create one. A constructive trust is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Believe what you will ...

http://www.rongolini.com/trustsandes...m#Constructive

http://www.quizlaw.com/trusts_and_es...tive_trust.php

http://www.hamline.edu/personal/ksal...ills/const.htm

But a constructive trust and resultant trust are imposed by the courts ... YOU cannot create one. A constructive trust is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.

I have been making a similar point for quite some time. A trust is a noun as well as a verb. When a trustee stole a pickup from the assets he ceased to be the trustee; simply on the grounds he was not trustworthy. However the court that adjudicated it was the beneficiary over the phone - we were determining the approximate time that the trust was disrupted beyond being a trust anymore.

I completely disagree with Brian's coaxing us to hire an attorney in equity to make the same determination.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Believe what you will ...

http://www.rongolini.com/trustsandes...m#Constructive

http://www.quizlaw.com/trusts_and_es...tive_trust.php

http://www.hamline.edu/personal/ksal...ills/const.htm

But a constructive trust and resultant trust are imposed by the courts ... YOU cannot create one. A constructive trust is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.

Brian, you are wrong. Corpus Juris Secundum has two huge volumes on trusts, and volume 2 explains numerous kinds of trusts, including resulting trusts, starting around page 133. A resulting trust "results" (get it?) as an operation of law, (by the actions of parties, not necessarily the courts) like in the real estate example above. It happens every day, all around you, thousands of times a day, and has nothing to do with a court in most cases. In a resulting trust, the parties to the trust do not even have to be aware the trust exists, and in most cases, they are not aware.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by theghost

Brian, you are wrong. Corpus Juris Secundum has two huge volumes on trusts, and volume 2 explains numerous kinds of trusts, including resulting trusts, starting around page 133. A resulting trust "results" (get it?) as an operation of law, (by the actions of parties, not necessarily the courts) like in the real estate example above. It happens every day, all around you, thousands of times a day, and has nothing to do with a court in most cases. In a resulting trust, the parties to the trust do not even have to be aware the trust exists, and in most cases, they are not aware.

What don't you understand about "operation of law?"

I gave you references.

You choose to ignore them.

You do so at your own peril.

[B Rookard]

Part 2 - Constructive Trusts and Analogous Equitable Remedies

Chapter 9 - General Principles

Topic 1 - Equitable Remedies

Restat 1st of Restitution, § 160

§ 160 Constructive Trust

Where a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it, a constructive trust arises.

COMMENTS & ILLUSTRATIONS: Comment:

a. Constructive trust and express trust. The term "constructive trust" is not altogether a felicitous one. It might be thought to suggest the idea that it is a fiduciary relation similar to an express trust, whereas it is in fact something quite different from an express trust. An express trust and a constructive trust are not divisions of the same fundamental concept. They are not species of the same genus. They are distinct concepts. A constructive trust does not, like an express trust, arise because of a manifestation of an intention to create it, but it is imposed as a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment. A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, is not a fiduciary relation, although the circumstances which give rise to a constructive trust may or may not involve a fiduciary relation.

It is true that both in the case of an express trust and in that of a constructive trust one person holds the title to property subject to an equitable duty to hold the property for or to convey it to another, and the latter has in each case some kind of an equitable interest in the property. In other respects, however, there is little resemblance between the two relationships. An attempt to define a trust in such a way as to include constructive trusts as well as express trusts is futile, since a single definition which would include such distinct ideas would be so general as to be useless. A constructive trust differs from an express trust in much the same way as a quasi-contractual obligation differs from a contractual obligation. On the other hand, a quasi-contractual obligation and a constructive trust closely resemble each other, the chief difference being that the plaintiff in bringing an action to enforce a quasi-contractual obligation seeks to obtain a judgment imposing a merely personal liability upon the defendant to pay a sum of money, whereas the plaintiff in bringing a suit to enforce a constructive trust seeks to recover specific property. For these reasons Constructive Trusts are dealt with together with Quasi Contracts in the Restatement of this Subject. Constructive trusts are not dealt with in the Restatement of Trusts, except in so far as they arise out of express trusts or attempts to create express trusts.

The term "trust," when not modified by an adjective, is in the Restatement of this Subject confined to express trusts (see Restatement of Trusts, §§ 1, 2).

b. Constructive trust and resulting trust. A constructive trust is also to be distinguished from a resulting trust. A resulting trust arises where a transfer of property is made under circumstances which raise an inference that the person making the transfer or causing it to be made did not intend the transferee to have the beneficial interest in the property transferred. A constructive trust is imposed not because of the intention of the parties but because the person holding the title to property would profit by a wrong or would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to keep the property. The trustee of a resulting trust, like the trustee of an express trust, is in a fiduciary relation to the beneficiary of the trust. (See Restatement of Trusts, §§ 404-460.)

c. Unjust enrichment. A constructive trust is imposed upon a person in order to prevent his unjust enrichment. To prevent such unjust enrichment an equitable duty to convey the property to another is imposed upon him. There are many situations in which a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another. In some of these situations, however, the relationship is not properly included in the term "constructive trust," since the equitable duty to convey the property is not based upon unjust enrichment. Thus, the trustee of an express trust is under such a duty when the time for the termination of the trust arrives; so also, a person who has made an enforceable contract to sell land is under such a duty to the purchaser, since such a contract is specifically enforceable; so also, a mortgagee or pledgee on the payment of the debt secured by the mortgage or pledge is under a duty to reconvey the property to the mortgagor, if the title to the property remains in him after the payment of the debt.

d. Unjust enrichment and unjust deprivation. In most cases where a constructive trust is imposed the result is to restore to the plaintiff property of which he has been unjustly deprived and to take from the defendant property the retention of which by him would result in a corresponding unjust enrichment of the defendant; in other words the effect is to prevent a loss to the plaintiff and a corresponding gain to the defendant, and to put each of them in the position in which he was before the defendant acquired the property.

There are some situations, however, in which a constructive trust is imposed in favor of a plaintiff who has not suffered a loss or who has not suffered a loss as great as the benefit received by the defendant. In these situations the defendant is compelled to surrender the benefit on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it, even though that enrichment is not at the expense or wholly at the expense of the plaintiff. Thus, if the defendant has made a profit through the violation of a duty to the plaintiff to whom he is in a fiduciary relation, he can be compelled to surrender the profit to the plaintiff, although the profit was not made at the expense of the plaintiff (see § 197). So also, where the defendant makes a profitthrough the consciously wrongful disposition of the plaintiff's property, he can be compelled to surrender the profit to the plaintiff and not merely to restore to the plaintiff his property or its value (see § 202). So also, in certain cases where the defendant wrongfully prevents the plaintiff from acquiring property and acquires the property for himself, the defendant can be compelled to surrender the property to the plaintiff, and not merely to restore the property to the person from whom the defendant wrongfully acquired it (see § 169).

e. Legal and equitable remedies. Where property is held by one person upon a constructive trust for another, the latter has the beneficial interest therein. In many cases the beneficiary of the constructive trust can by a proceeding in equity compel the constructive trustee to transfer the property to him in specie; he is entitled to specific enforcement of the constructive trust. This is true, for example, where the title to land or unique chattels is obtained by mistake or fraud. In some cases, however, where a proceeding at law can be maintained for the property or its value and where the legal remedy is adequate, a proceeding in equity cannot be maintained. The refusal of the court to permit specific recovery of the property in a proceeding in equity, however, does not necessarily mean that there is no constructive trust.

Thus, where money is paid by one person to another as a result of a mistake of such a character that the payor is entitled to restitution, he is ordinarily not entitled to maintain a suit in equity for the specific recovery of the money, even though the payee still holds the money so that specific restitution would be possible, since a quasi-contractual action at law would give an adequate remedy (see § 163, Comment d). Where, however, the payee is insolvent, the payor can maintain a suit in equity for the specific recovery of the money paid by mistake, if the payee still holds it, since the money is held upon a constructive trust for him (see Comment f).

Similarly, where the title to a chattel which is not unique is transferred by one person to another as a result of a mistake of such a character that the transferor is entitled to restitution, he is ordinarily not entitled to maintain a suit in equity for the specific recovery of the chattel, unless the transferee is insolvent (see § 163, Comment d).

So also, where the payment of money or the transfer of the title to a chattel which is not unique is procured by fraud, the payor or transferor ordinarily is not entitled to specific restitution, unless the payee or transferee is insolvent (see § 166, Comment b).

Even though what is transferred is money or a chattel which is not unique, the payor or transferor is entitled to maintain a proceeding in equity for specific restitution if the payment or transfer was procured by an abuse of a fiduciary or confidential relation.