Unthank v. Rippstein
386 S.W.2d 134 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a valid declaration of trust to exist, the writing must demonstrate a clear intent to create a trust and identify a specific, certain subject matter (the trust res). A mere promise to make future gifts that purports to bind one's estate, without segregating any specific property, is unenforceable and will not be construed as a trust.
Facts:
- C. P. Craft wrote a personal letter to Mrs. Iva Rippstein.
- The letter contained a promise to send Rippstein $200 in cash each month for five years.
- The original promise was conditioned on Craft living for that duration.
- In a handwritten marginal notation, Craft struck out the condition that he live that long.
- In the same marginal note, Craft wrote that he did 'hereby and herewith bind my estate to make the $200.00 monthly payments'.
- Craft did not designate any specific property, funds, or assets from which these payments were to be made.
- Craft died three days after writing the letter.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Rippstein first unsuccessfully sought to probate the letter as a codicil to Craft's will; the Court of Civil Appeals held it was not a testamentary instrument.
- Mrs. Rippstein then filed suit in trial court against the executors of Craft's estate, seeking to enforce the promise.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the executors.
- Mrs. Rippstein (appellant) appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed the trial court and rendered judgment for her, holding a voluntary trust was established.
- The executors of Craft's estate (petitioners) appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a written statement in a personal letter, which promises future monthly payments and purports to 'bind my estate' to make them, create a valid and enforceable trust when it fails to identify any specific property to serve as the trust res?
Opinions:
Majority - Steakley, Justice
No. The writing does not create a valid trust because it lacks the requisite certainty of subject matter. For a court to enforce a trust, there must be certainty of intent, certainty of the beneficiary, and certainty of the trust property, known as the res. Here, Craft's statement that he would 'bind my estate' is too general to identify a specific trust res. He did not expressly declare that all or any specific portion of his property would constitute the corpus of a trust. Without segregating specific assets, the writing is merely an expression of an intention to make future gifts, which is an unenforceable promise. An imperfect gift will not be enforced as a trust merely because of its imperfection, and a promise to give cannot be tortured into a declaration of trust.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the foundational principle of trust law that a trust cannot exist without a clearly identified trust res (property). It prevents the transformation of unenforceable gratuitous promises into enforceable trusts, thereby maintaining the distinction between a present transfer of a beneficial interest (a trust) and a mere promise of a future gift. The court's refusal to find a trust based on the general phrase 'bind my estate' establishes a high bar for certainty, ensuring that a person's entire property is not implicitly burdened by a trust without clear donative intent. This case serves as a crucial reminder for estate planners that ambiguity in identifying the trust property is fatal to the creation of a trust.
