History:
G.S. 1868, ch. 114, § 5; R.S. 1923, 67-405; Repealed, L. 2002, ch. 133, § 93; January 1, 2003.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mortgage foreclosure sale of trust property; trustee cannot acquire title for himself by purchase. Rathbun v. Hill, 187 Kan. 130, 132, 147, 354 P.2d 338.
2. Power to sell or convey property can be exercised only in manner provided in instrument conferring the power. In re Estate of Sutcliffe, 199 Kan. 686, 694, 433 P.2d 389.
3. Conveyance of church property by trustees in violation of fiduciary relationship and contrary to trust purposes is void. Gospel Tabernacle Body of Christ Church v. Peace Publishers & Co., 211 Kan. 420, 425, 506 P.2d 1135. Motion for rehearing denied: 211 Kan. 927, 508 P.2d 842.
4. Trustee cannot ratify an act that is in violation of trust agreement because such an act is void. Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Kroh Bros. Dev. Co., 250 Kan. 754, 764, 766, 829 P.2d 907 (1992).
5. Presence of a resulting trust depends upon an agreement to hold property for the person paying the consideration and lack of fraudulent intent. In re Harrison, 430 B.R. 679 (2010).
Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Kroh Bros. Dev., 863 P.2d 355 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 2ד” K.S.A. 58-2405. The trust agreement provides in part: “[N]o part of the Trust Estate, either income or principal, shall revert or be distributed to or used for or inure to the benefit of (i) the Grantor, (ii) any other individual or corporate donor to the Trust Estate, (iii)…”
Est. of Bennett v. Comm'r, 100 T.C. 42 (Tax Ct. 1993). “Furthermore, a person named as trustee cannot accept the trust in part and disclaim in part: "This is true whether he purports to accept the trust only as to a part of the trust property, or only as to some of the duties.”
In Re Harrison, 430 B.R. 679 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2010). · cites it 2ד3 K.S.A. 58-2405 abolishes the doctrine by providing: When a conveyance for a valuable consideration is made to one person and the consideration therefor paid by another, no use or trust shah result in favor of the latter; but the title shall vest in the former, subject to the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.