Equity Jurisdiction and Resulting Trust

Status
Not open for further replies.

bgp5740

Banned
We're getting evicted and we're fighting it in court as Pro Se litigants. It's not a simple case, it has to do more with a contract dispute than a simple eviction. The Plaintiff/Landlord is my husband's mother. He and I are the Defendants/Tenants.

We arrived here over four years ago to help out my husband's mother, after his father died. His father had Alzheimer's and the numerous properties the parents owned together were in severe disrepair. We had to place our business on hold to clean up and maintain the properties and to help the mother get much needed financing to preserve the properties and renovate a home on one of the properties thereby giving her the option to move there or rent it out for income.

Over two years ago, my husband and his mother signed a contract granting him permanent transfer of property rights to all the properties she and his Dad owned, specifically the property from which she's attempting to evict us. We entered into the contract for one reason: we financially couldn't do the services for free. We would have loved to have done the services for free or to have paid to have them done. She knew very well of our financial situation. This is why she agreed to sign the contract in the first place.

It was agreed that she would get a reverse mortgage on the property in which she was living and to use part of those funds to renovate another home on another property, which she did and which we helped her get (we did all the work, she just signed the papers). Then, the rest of the plan was, when that property was in good shape, to take out a 150K mortgage on it to finish it and to have a cushion to make mortgage payments, if needed, as well as renting out the now finished, renovated home.

Unfortunately, she kept dragging her feet at taking out the 150K mortgage. This placed her in a financially vulnerable state so that when it was found that renovations on the other property were going to be more than anticipated, she did not have the funds to complete the home. This caused a legal/financial mess when other members of the family decided to enter the picture and manipulate the mother to actions that are, as we see it, not in her best interest. That is another case and the entire proceeding can be seen at plaintiff.jetiii.com.

We've already had a bench trial and the judge appears to be on our side. He gave us two weeks to produce case law to support our case. He pointed us in the right direction by suggesting we look up Equity Jurisdiction and Resulting Trust which we are doing.

If you have any ideas or knowledge of cases that we can present at the next scheduled trial that has been continued to Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, we would greatly appreciate it.
 
You're making a false assumption.

Do not delude yourself.

A judge does not take a side.

If it appears that a judge is siding with you, you're seeing only what you choose to see.


I'll comment on the law, when I return to my offce, later today.
 




Were any of these "agreements" in writing?

Would you call these "agreements" contracts?

Do you KNOW what constitutes a contract?

Please tell me.

Or, were these "agreements" oral?

Can you report exactly what was said?

Over what period of time did this transpire?

There are specific reasons why I'm asking these questions.


But, why wait for your answers.

I don't see how anything you say will work to your advantage.

Why?

If you had a written, valid contract, you'd not be in litigation.

Therefore, I'll conclude you had no written contract.

You have had, no doubt, conversations.

But, mother for whatever reason(s) failed to act.

Mom's failure to act extinguished any claim you might now assert.

What you think might be a contract, was probably a mere promise.

Broken promises are not actionable before the bar, as no tort defines such conduct.

Google, Prosser on Torts to verify my assertion.

Now we address the term "resulting trust".

Let's define a resulting trust.

A resulting trust is established out of an implied trust under operation of law.

Where property gets transferred to a person who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held such property for the exclusive benefit of another person.

A resulting trust is properly said to "result" back to the transferor (the implied settlor).

settlor: the person who creates a trust by a written trust declaration, called a "Trustor" in many states or sometimes referred to as the "Donor." The settlor often transfers the original assets into the trust.

In this instance, the word 'result' means "the result or remains with", or something similar to "revert" or "return".

The resulting interest is then held in trust for the settlor.

It is not an established principle that all trusts, whose beneficiary is also its settlor, can be called a resulting trust.

Under common law, a resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; as express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary.

These resultant trusts, however, are not normally considered resulting trusts.

Now, if you fail to grasp that, let me break it down for you.

A resulting trust is a creature of equity, not law.

Equity attempts to address the nebulous issue of fairness.

Here's your problem, and I understand why you don't want to see it.

If you had a case, especially of considerable value, you'd be able to obtain a good lawyer.

You have been unable to retain an attorney.

I won't go into why, but I'll wrap this up by saying, no property lawyer will walk away from a good case.

I'm sorry, I don't see anyway you can connect the dots.

You acted on a promise, according to your recollection.

However, mom, never did anything to affirm your actions.

Why?

The doesn't concern itself with motives.

She simply didn't.

There was no contract, and absent a contract, you have no basis to support your claim.


 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top