Resulting Trusts. Robert and Everett Kling, two brothers, ...

[Shelles]

Resulting Trusts. Robert and Everett Kling, two brothers, purchased rental property in Fenton, Missouri. Robert contributed 5,544 and Everett, 5,624 toward the purchase price of 19,005. Title to the property was taken in the name of Everett's wife, Nancy. The brothers maintained an account in which they made deposits and from which they paid expenses related to the rental property. Although each brother had agreed to contribute 20 per month toward the remaining purchase price, Robert never did do so, and Everett consequently increased his contribution to 40 per month. When Robert died, Everett and Nancy claimed 100 percent ownership of the Fenton property. Robert's children, John and Janet, filed suit, claiming that Everett and Nancy held the property as a resulting trust and that they (John and Janet) were entitled to half of the property. Discuss whether a resulting trust had been created and, if so, what the distribution should be.

Question 2

Legal standards, in the area of drug testing, are:
 a. similar in most states that adopted the Uniform Drug Testing Policy Act b. subject mainly to Department of Labor regulations
  c. entirely federal; the states may not regulate this area d. different in various states
  e. none of the other choices

[fur]

Answer to Question 1

Resulting trusts
The law implies a resulting trust for the conduct of the parties and the circumstances existing at the time of the transaction from which the trust arose. The burden of establishing the elements of a resulting trust lies with the party seeking to establish the resulting trust. When one pays the purchase price for land with legal title taken by another, a presumption arises that the latter holds the property under a resulting trust for the payor. If the payor only pays a part of the pur-chase price, he or she acquires a pro tanto interest in the real estate. This theory assumes that one who provides purchase money intends to receive the benefit of the purchase. Of the 19,005 paid at and before the closing, the evidence showed that Robert contributed 5,534 and Everett contributed 5,624. The remaining 7,837 was attributed to Everett because of Ev-erett's continued contribution and the appellants' failure to meet their burden of proving other-wise. The trial court's calculation resulted in a 29 percent share for Robert's estate and 71 per-cent share for Everett.

Answer to Question 2

d