Court Opinion

ID: 9743186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:27:31.675786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.814671
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the court did not abuse its discretion in its treatment of the potential tax liability attending the husband's HR-10 plan.
I also agree that pursuant to IC 84-8-2-4 and Jameson Chemical Co., Ltd. v. Love (1980), Ind.App., 401 N.E.2d 41, Indiana law should be applied in determining the validity of the trust involving the $35,000 placed with the husband by his father.
My point of departure is the majority's ensuing determination that the father created a valid oral trust under Indiana law despite the provisions of IC 80-4-2-1 (which requires written evidence signed by the settlor or his agent). While the majority correctly points out that in Costa v. Costa, (1953), 124 Ind.App. 128, 115 N.E.2d 516 this court acknowledged that oral trusts created prior to 1971 might remain valid, its language was quite restrictive. I believe the majority unnecessarily and unwisely relaxes those strictures today.
The learned trial judge determined that these funds were "impressed with a trust." As set forth in Section 411, Restatement of Trusts (Second):
"Where the owner of property gratuitously transfers it and properly manifests an intention that the transferee should hold the property in trust but the trust fails, the transferee holds the trust estate upon a resulting trust for the transferor or his estate, unless the trans-feror properly manifested an intention that no resulting trust should arise or the intended trust fails for illegality."
The section of the Restatement correctly sets forth the law of Indiana. Criss v. Bitzegaio (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1221; Colbo v. Buyer (1956), 235 Ind. 518, 134 N.E.2d 45; Koehler v. Koehler (1919), 75 Ind.App. 510, 121 N.E. 450.
In the present case, finding a resulting trust fits the facts in evidence, the language employed by the court, and the law of this state. Upon that basis I agree the judgment should be affirmed.