RESULTING TRUST - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

See encyclopedia: Constructive and Resulting Trusts as Litigation Remedies →

RESULTING TRUSTAuthored

The Law Mind • 1163 words

Definition

A resulting trust is a trust implied by law rather than created by express agreement. It arises when equity determines that a person holding legal title to property should not be permitted to benefit from it — the beneficial interest "results back" to the transferor or to the person who furnished the purchase money. No written instrument is required; the trust emerges from the circumstances of the transaction and the presumed intent of the parties.

Resulting trusts fall into two well-recognized categories:

(1) Purchase-money resulting trust. When one person pays the purchase price for property but title is taken in another person's name, equity presumes that the title-holder holds the property in trust for the person who provided the funds. The beneficial interest results back to the payor.

(2) Failure-of-purpose resulting trust. When an express trust fails, is only partially executed, or the trust purpose is fully accomplished leaving a surplus, equity will not allow the trustee to pocket the remaining property. Instead, a resulting trust arises in favor of the original transferor or the transferor's estate.

Both forms rest on the same foundation: equity will not permit legal title to become a vehicle for unjust enrichment where the intent to make an outright gift is absent or unprovable.

---

Common Confusion

RESULTING TRUST vs. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. These are the most frequently conflated concepts in trust law, and historical sources often blur the line. A resulting trust is based on presumed intent — equity infers what the parties must have meant. A constructive trust is remedial — it is imposed regardless of intent to prevent fraud, unjust enrichment, or wrongdoing by the title-holder. The distinction matters enormously in litigation: a resulting trust claim requires showing circumstances from which beneficial intent can be presumed; a constructive trust claim requires showing that retention of the property by the legal owner would be inequitable. Researchers should not assume that historical sources using "implied trust" as a synonym for "resulting trust" are excluding constructive trusts — the older literature frequently used "implied" to cover both.

RESULTING TRUST vs. EXPRESS TRUST. A resulting trust cannot arise where the parties have declared an express trust governing the same property. If an express trust has been validly created, it occupies the field. This limitation appears consistently across the historical sources and remains controlling.

---

Why It Matters in Research

The terminology in historical sources is unstable. "Implied trust," "presumptive trust," and "resulting trust" were used interchangeably by many 18th- and 19th-century courts and commentators, sometimes encompassing what modern law would classify as constructive trusts. Bouvier's makes the traditional tripartite distinction (express, resulting/presumptive, constructive) but warns that "all trusts created by implication or construction of law are often included under the general term implied trusts." When reading older cases, always determine which functional category the court is actually applying — do not assume labels map cleanly onto modern doctrine.

The purchase-money resulting trust has undergone significant erosion in many American jurisdictions. Statutes in several states have abolished or sharply limited it, particularly between spouses or in consumer real estate transactions, where courts may apply a presumption of gift instead. Research in post-1950 American materials requires careful attention to whether the jurisdiction has modified the common law rule by statute.

Parol evidence. Historical sources consistently recognize that a resulting trust may be established by oral evidence — an important exception to the Statute of Frauds, which generally requires written instruments for interests in land. Rapalje & Lawrence flags this explicitly. Researchers working on Statute of Frauds questions should trace how each jurisdiction has treated this exception, as it has been contested and narrowed in some courts.

The failure-of-purpose resulting trust is closely tied to cy-près doctrine in charitable trust contexts. When a charitable purpose fails, the question of whether a resulting trust arises for the settlor's estate or whether cy-près applies to redirect the funds is a recurring litigation issue — and the two doctrines operate as alternatives. Researchers working on charitable trust failure should read resulting trust materials alongside cy-près materials.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

The historical dictionaries converge on the core definition: a resulting trust is raised by implication of law and presumed from the nature of the transaction and the parties' supposed intent. Black's, Bouvier's, and Burrill's are in full agreement on this foundation. The formulations differ only in emphasis.

Burrill's is the most instructive on the mechanics of the failure-of-appointment category, illustrating the doctrine with the classic example of a conveyance to a trustee on trusts not yet appointed — because the trustee plainly holds nothing for his own benefit and the appointment has not taken effect, equity implies a resulting trust back to the grantor until appointment is made. This clarifies why the doctrine is not merely a remedy for wrongdoing but a structural feature of how equity fills gaps in incomplete dispositions.

Rapalje & Lawrence is the least expository of the four, organizing the entry as a case digest rather than a definition. Its value lies in the case references (Alabama, Pennsylvania, New York, and English Chancery authorities), which confirm that the doctrine was applied across multiple jurisdictions in the 19th century. Notably, it flags the limitation that a resulting trust cannot be claimed by one who lacked an interest at the relevant time — a nuance the other dictionaries do not foreground.

None of the historical dictionaries adequately addresses the statutory modifications to the purchase-money resulting trust that developed across American states in the 20th century. Researchers should treat these sources as reliable for pre-20th century common law doctrine but supplement them with statutory research for modern applications.

---

Jurisdictional Note

The purchase-money resulting trust has been modified or abolished by statute in a number of states, particularly in the spousal and domestic partner context where courts increasingly apply a presumption of gift. English law has also significantly developed this area through the Pettitt and Gissing lines of House of Lords decisions. Researchers working on real property or family law disputes should verify the applicable jurisdiction's current treatment before relying on common law presumptions.

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Resulting Trusts — Purchase-Money and Failure-of-Express-Trust Resulting Trusts (estates_67), The Law Mind Trusts, Estates & Probate Encyclopedia — primary reference for doctrinal development and the two main resulting trust categories.

Constructive and Resulting Trusts as Litigation Remedies (estates_107), The Law Mind Trusts, Estates & Probate Encyclopedia — essential for researchers approaching resulting trusts as a cause of action or remedy, including comparison with constructive trust claims.

---

RESULTING TRUSTmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

One that arises by implication of law, or by the operation and construction of equity, and which is estab- lished as consonant to the presumed intention of the parties as gathered from the nature of the transaction.

RESULTING TRUSTmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1883

- See RESULT, 1; TRUST. RESULTING TRUST, (defined). 58 Ala. 84; 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 625. (what is). 2 Watts (Pa.) 323; 2 Atk. 71, 150 n.; 5 Myl. & C. 125. (what is not). 5 Watis (Pa.) 389; 7 (by operation of law). 1 Watts (Pa.) (may be proved by parol). 5 Watts (cannot arise where there is an express trust delared by the parties). 5 Paige (N. Y.) 117. Jur. 523. 193. (Pa.) 27. (cannot be claimed by one who pays part only of the consideration for land conveyed to another). 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 647.

RESULTING TRUSTmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

A trust raised by implication or construction of law, and presumed to exist from the supposed inten- tion of the parties and the nature of the transaction. All trusts created by implication or con- struction of law are often included under the general term implied trusts; but these are commonly distinguished into implied or resulting and constructive trusts; re- sulting or presumptive trusts being those which are implied or presumed from the supposed intention of the parties and the nature of the transaction; constructive trusts, such as are raised independently of any such intention, and which are forced on the conscience of the trustee by equi- table construction and the operation of law. Story, Eq. Jur. § 1095; 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 510; 2 id. 198; 3 Swanst. 585; 1 Ohio 321; 6 Conn. 285; 2 Edw. Ch. 373; 6 Humphr. 93. Where upon a purchase of property the conveyance of the legal estate is taken in the name of one person, while the consid- eration is given or paid by another, the parties being strangers to each other, a re- sulting or presumptive trust immediately arises by virtue of the transaction, and the person named in the conveyance will be a trustee for the party from whom the con- sideration proceeds; 30 Me. 120; 8 N. H. 187; 5 Cush. 435; 10 Paige, Ch. 618; 2 Green, Ch. 480; 18 Pa. 283; 2 Harr. Del. 225; Beach, Mod. Eq. Jur. 218; 75 Cal. 166 ; 83 Ala. 135; 64 Vt. 326; 112 Mo. 412; and if he conveys the property to the cestui que trust, such conveyance is good as against the creditors of the trustee; 151 U. S. 420. Resulting trusts are raised by the law from the presumed intention of the parties, and the natural equity that one who fur- nishes the means for the acquisition of property should enjoy its benefits. But it cannot arise where an obligation exists on his part, legal or moral, to provide for the grantee, as in the case of a husband for his wife, or a father for his child, as under such circumstance the relation to the party is of itself sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust, for in such cases arises the contrary presumption of an advancement for the grantee's bene- fit; 91 U. S. 125. Where land is bought by a husband with the separate property of a married woman, and the title is taken in his name, a trust results to her, in the absence of any agree ment to the contrary; 110 N. C. 403; 176 Pa. 67. But where a wife gives to her husband money from her father's estate, without any agreement for its investment, or that he should be accountable to her for it, and he subsequently informed her that he has in- vested it in land for her, when, in fact, he has not done so, but has taken the title in his own name, it was held that, under the proof in that case, no resulting trust therein was created in favor of the wife; 38 S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 977. To establish a resulting trust in one per- son of land purchased in the name of an- other, to whom title is conveyed, it is e sential that the party setting up the trust shall have paid, or become bound for the purchase-money on his own account, and as part of the original transaction of pur- chase; 4 Del. Ch. 445; payment by way of loan to the nominal purchaser raises no resulting trust; id. It is a latent equity, which cannot prejudice a bona fide holder for value; id. 135. The fact that a conveyance is voluntary, especially when accompanied by other cir- cumstances indicative of such an intention, it is said, may raise a resulting trust. See 2 Vern. 473: 23 Pa. 243; 29 Me. 410; 1 Johns. Ch. 240; 1 Dev. Eq. 456; 14 B. Monr. 585. Where a voluntary; 1 Atk. 188; disposi- tion of property by deed; 1 Dev. Eq. 498; or will is made to a person as trustee, and the trust is not declared at all; 10 Ves. 527; 3 Sim. 538; or is ineffectually declared: 1 Myl. & C. 286; 13 Sim. 496: 2 Dev. Eq. 255; or does not extend to the whole interest giv- en to the trustee; 8 Pet. 326; 14 B. Monr. 585; 3 H. L. C. 492; or it fails either wholly or in part by lapse or otherwise; 5 Harr. & J. 392; 5 Paige, Ch. 318; 6 Ired. Eq. 187; 7 P. Monr. 481: 15 Pa. 500; 10 Hare 204; the interest so undisposed of will be held by the trustee, not for his own benefit, but as a resulting trust for the donor himself, or for his heir at law or next of kin, according to the nature of the estate. A resulting trust must arise at the time the title is taken. No subsequent oral agreement or payment will create it; 89 W. Va. 14; 85 Va. 740; 84 id. 813; 65 Ν. H. 39; 149 Mass. 400; 138 U. S. 587. Where a father was induced to execute an abso- lute deed of his land to one of his children, by fraudulent representations that the grantee would hold it in trust for the other children, and subsequently without fraud executed another deed to the same grantee for the same land, the latter deed passed the title free from any trust in favor of the other children, as the fraud in procuring the first deed created a resulting trust in favor of the father, the express trust being void, as not being

resulting trustnoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

A trust that is implied in law, under which property entrusted to one party is not to be used for the benefit of that party, but for that party to use for the benefit of a third party.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In