Opinion ID: 473101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: resulting trusts

Text: 8 A resulting trust arises where a person makes or causes to be made a disposition of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that the person taking or holding the property should have the beneficial interest therein. Restatement (Second) of Trusts Sec. 404 (1959). The trust exists because the person who holds the property is not entitled to the beneficial interest. Restatement (Second) of Trusts introductory note to chapter 12, topic 1. See generally A. Scott, The Law of Trusts Secs. 404.1, 404.2 (3d ed.1967). 9 Washington has adopted the test of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts for determining whether a resulting trust has arisen. Manning v. Mount St. Michael's Seminary, 78 Wash.2d 542, 477 P.2d 635, 636-37 (1970). Under this test, 10 A resulting trust may arise in any one of the following situations: 11 1. Where a private or charitable trust fails in whole or in part;2. Where a private or charitable trust is fully performed without exhausting the trust estate; 12 3. Where property is purchased and the purchase price is paid by one person and at his direction the vendor transfers the property to another person. 13 Manning, 477 P.2d at 637 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Trusts, introductory note to chapter 12, topic 1) (citations omitted). 14 Clearly the transfer of the Terrace Heights property does not fall into either of the first two categories. Accordingly, we will examine the third. Resulting trusts arise where the party transferring the property does not intend that the beneficial interest vest in the transferee. Here, however, Washburn & Roberts did intend, as did Park East, that the beneficial interest vest in the transferee. Park East paid the purchase price for the Terrace Heights property and took title in its own name. It did not direct the vendor, Washburn & Roberts, to transfer the property to a third party. The third category is thus also clearly inapplicable. In short, the transfer falls wholly outside the types of transfers that give rise to resulting trusts, and no resulting trust arose. The fact that the transfer was not recorded makes no difference. As the defendants themselves point out, under Washington law the recording of a deed adds nothing to its effectiveness as a conveyance; all that it accomplishes is to impart notice. J.W. Fales Co. v. O.H. Seiple Co., 171 Wash. 630, 19 P.2d 118, 124 (1933). Accordingly, we reject the defendants' argument that because a resulting trust exists section 544(a)(3) is not applicable to the transfer of the Terrace Heights property. 3 15