noting the same proof requirements for the existence of a trust while explaining that although “[a] valid trust need not be in writing,” “when a party seeks to establish an oral trust, it must do so by greater than a preponderance of the evidence”
How later courts described this case
- noting the same proof requirements for the existence of a trust while explaining that although “[a] valid trust need not be in writing,” “when a party seeks to establish an oral trust, it must do so by greater than a preponderance of the evidence”
- noting that existence of trust requires proof of three elements: (1) a trustee who holds the trust property and who is subject to equitable duties to deal with it for the benefit of another; (2) a beneficiary; and (3) identifiable trust property
- listing the elements for creation of an express trust
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TODD, Presiding Judge, Middle Section,
concurring.
I completely concur in the principal opinion, but respectfully submit this historical footnote.
Historically, in 1892, the property was located in Edgefield, which was not a part of Nashville, and the particular community was known as North Edgefield. The name of the Church was North Edgefield Baptist Church. Although the area is now a part of Nashville, it is still known as North Edgefield, or Northeast Nashville.
North Nashville is some distance to the west and across the Cumberland River.
The only evidence in this record concerning the name and location of the Baptist Church which formerly owned the subject property is the testimony of a recent immigrant whose information was perforce obtained from others with probable difficulty in understanding.
It is entirely proper for this Court to use the only identification found in the record. Since it is immaterial to the result, it is hoped that the above explanation will preserve the historical background.