CAN BK TRUSTEE SELL DEBTOR’S FATHER’S HOUSE IF DEBTOR’S NAME IS ON TITLE?
楊清泉律師事務所
【接上文】
At the summary judgment motion hearing, the court found that the debtor daughter did not have an equitable interest in the property even if her name was on title to the property together with her father’s name. “Here, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the imposition of a resulting trust on the defendant’s (father) home for the benefit of the defendant is appropriate. Based upon the uncontested summary judgment evidence, the court concludes that an agreement existed between the defendant and his daughter, Stephanie, as to the home. In particular, when the defendant added Stephanie to the General Warranty Deed in 1993, the defendant and Stephanie understood that the defendant was to retain all of the beneficial interest in his home. Moreover, the conduct of the parties further supports the proposition that the defendant and Stephanie both intended for the defendant alone to hold beneficial title to his home. The defendant lives alone in the home, and only the defendant has borne the costs and risks of ownership by making the mortgage payments and paying property taxes, insurance, and other expenses,” the court said. “Therefore, the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the defendant intended to hold equitable title and intended Stephanie to acquire only legal title to the home. There are no uncontested facts that would call into question the parties’ agreement. The debtors even described their interest in the defendant’s home in their bankruptcy schedules as a “legal interest”. The court concludes that the parties’ agreement and presumed intentions support the imposition of a resulting trust on the defendant’s home in favor of the defendant.”
Defendant in this case was fortunate because he had convincing uncontroverted evidence that daughter was holding the property in trust for him. If evidence is insufficient, the result may be different.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than five thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
At the summary judgment motion hearing, the court found that the debtor daughter did not have an equitable interest in the property even if her name was on title to the property together with her father’s name. “Here, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the imposition of a resulting trust on the defendant’s (father) home for the benefit of the defendant is appropriate. Based upon the uncontested summary judgment evidence, the court concludes that an agreement existed between the defendant and his daughter, Stephanie, as to the home. In particular, when the defendant added Stephanie to the General Warranty Deed in 1993, the defendant and Stephanie understood that the defendant was to retain all of the beneficial interest in his home. Moreover, the conduct of the parties further supports the proposition that the defendant and Stephanie both intended for the defendant alone to hold beneficial title to his home. The defendant lives alone in the home, and only the defendant has borne the costs and risks of ownership by making the mortgage payments and paying property taxes, insurance, and other expenses,” the court said. “Therefore, the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the defendant intended to hold equitable title and intended Stephanie to acquire only legal title to the home. There are no uncontested facts that would call into question the parties’ agreement. The debtors even described their interest in the defendant’s home in their bankruptcy schedules as a “legal interest”. The court concludes that the parties’ agreement and presumed intentions support the imposition of a resulting trust on the defendant’s home in favor of the defendant.”
Defendant in this case was fortunate because he had convincing uncontroverted evidence that daughter was holding the property in trust for him. If evidence is insufficient, the result may be different.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than five thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
把此文章分享到：
關於 楊清泉律師事務所
