“A resulting trust arises by operation of law from a transfer of property under circumstances showing that the transferee was not intended to take the beneficial interest. . . . Ordinarily a resulting trust arises in favor of the payor of the purchase price of the property where the purchase price, or a part thereof, is paid by one person and the title is taken in the name of another. The trust arises because it is the natural presumption in such a case that it was their intention that the ostensible purchaser should acquire and hold the property for the one with whose means it was acquired.”

Estate of Yool, 151 Cal. App. 4th 867, 874 (2007).

“‘A resulting trust arises when a person (the “transferor”) makes or causes to be made a disposition of property under circumstances (i) in which some or all of the transferor's beneficial interest is not effectively transferred to others (and yet not expressly retained by the transferor) and (ii) which raise an unrebutted presumption that the transferor does not intend the one who receives the property (the “transferee”) to have the remaining beneficial interest.’”

Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, 201 Cal. App. 4th 368, 386 (2011) (citing Rest.3d Trusts, § 7).

CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court of California: Majewsky v. Empire Constr. Co., 2 Cal. 3d 478, 485-86 (1970).

California 1st District: Estate of Yool, 151 Cal. App. 4th 867, 874 (2007).

California 2d District: Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, 201 Cal. App. 4th 368, 386 (2011).

California 3d District: Mercantile Collection Bureau v. Roach, 195 Cal. App. 2d 355, 358 (1961).

California 4th District: Casa Colina Convalescent Home for Crippled Children, Inc. v. Wiest, 214 Cal. App. 2d 161, 164 & 165 (1963)..

California 5th District: Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. v. Schroeder, 179 Cal. App. 4th 834, 847-48 (2009).

California 6th District: None.

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS

United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: McGranahan v. Rosa (In re Garcia), 92 Fed. Appx. 486, 486-87 (9th Cir. 2004).

Central District: None.

Eastern District: In re Shinn, No. 07-14013-B-13, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 4876, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Br. June 20, 2008).

Northern District: Concorde Equity II, LLC v. Miller, 732 F. Supp. 2d 990, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

Southern District: Leeds LP v. United States, No. 08cv100 BTM (BLM), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79046, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010).

(1) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30(b)(2) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See Chapter 1 for all defenses.

(2) Statute of Limitations: “The applicable statute of limitations on an action to establish a resulting trust is the four-year statute found in Code of Civil Procedure section 343.” Estate of Yool, 151 Cal. App. 4th 867, 875 (2007). “The statute of limitations does not begin to run against a voluntary resulting trust in the absence of repudiation by the trustee, that is, until demand has been made upon the trustee and the trustee refuses to account or convey.” Id.

(3) Clear and Convincing Evidence: The burden of one seeking to enforce a resulting trust is that of presenting clear and convincing evidence in support of the claim. See, e.g., Gomez v. Cecena, 15 Cal. 2d 363, 366-67 (1940).

(4) Parol Evidence: Parol evidence is admissible to establish the existence of a resulting trust. Jones v. Gore, 141 Cal. App. 2d 667, 673 (1956).

(5) Repudiation: Resulting trusts can be repudiated. Leeds LP v. United States, No. 08cv100 BTM (BLM), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79046, at *16-17 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010).

(6) Loan Does Not Create: “[I]n California, ‘[no] trust results in favor of one who lends money to another with which to buy land.’” Haskell v. Wood, 256 Cal. App. 2d 799, 805 (1967).