Opinion ID: 1408861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trust Res

Text: Scott argues that the trust was not funded at its creation, and therefore was not validly created. We disagree. There is sufficient evidence that the trusts were funded. Testator expressed an intent to create a trust, designated beneficiaries and a trustee, and funded the trust. In order to create an enforceable trust it is necessary that the donor or creator should part with his interest in the property to the trustee by an actual conveyance or transfer, and, where the creator has legal title, that such title should pass to the trustee. Tyson v. Henry, 133 N.C.App. 415, 514 S.E.2d 564, 565 (1999). Under the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, [i]f the owner of property executes an instrument purporting to transfer to another in trust such property as he may designate thereafter, the conveyance is incomplete and no trust arises unless and until he designates and transfers the property.  § 26 cmt. e (1959) (emphasis added). There is evidence that a ten dollar bill was attached to the trust documents when Testator executed the documents. The trust agreement obviously may precede the transfer of title, as well as occur at the time of the transfer. George Gleason Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, § 141,10 (2d ed., West 1979). Even if Testator did not fund the trust at the moment the documents were signed, the trusts were funded as of March 21, 1997, one year prior to Testator's death, as evidenced by a partnership agreement. See, e.g. Burbridge v. First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 415 P.2d 591 (Ok.1965) (No property or assets were listed in the trust agreement or attached thereto as exhibits. The trust did not become operative as to any of the settlor's assets when the trust agreement was drawn up, but only later when property was specifically transferred and delivered to the trustee by the settlor.) We therefore conclude that all of the required elements for the formation of a trust were met.