A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for the benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or jump back to the transferor (implied settlor). In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts. In common law systems, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts. Another understanding of resulting trusts could be an equitable instrument used to rectify and reverse unjust enrichment.
The beneficial interest results in the settlor, or if the settlor has died the property forms part of the settlor's estate (intestacy). It remains with the person and the case of "Vandervell v Inland Reveneue Commissioners" (1967) shows that only the beneficial interest disappears but not the beneficiary interest.
Closely-related parties.
Some jurisdictions may establish a rebuttable presumption of gift for property transfers between relatives. The presumption may operate as an affirmative defense to a petition to establish a resulting trust implied by operation of law as it is.
The law presumes that it is legitimate to transfer property to a family member, particularly for a relative's support. But an unrelated transferee who receives substantial value without consideration is ordinarily presumed to hold the property in trust for the benefit of the transferor, unless it can be proven by them that it was intended to be a gift. The rebuttable presumption of gift affects transfers between siblings, uncles, aunts, children, and grandchildren.
A notable exception to the presumption of gift is the transfer of property between husband and wife (transmutations). The marital exception to presumption of gift arises from the fiduciary duty that spouses owe to one another. Spouses have a special trusted relationship that imputes an obligation of utmost good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, spouses are deemed incapable of transmutation except under specified circumstances, such as when making an EXPRESS DECLARATION of transmutation as by clear statement in a deed or other writing of substantial dignity.
Unlawful purpose.
In common law jurisdictions, a resulting trust law is a creation of the law of equity, rather than of common law (in the strict sense). Accordingly, the laws of some jurisdictions might recognize equitable defenses such as laches, unclean hands, and the responsibility to do equity. For example, if a transferor transfers property for an unlawful purpose and gains a benefit, then a court might hold that he has waived his right to claim a resulting trust. In such situations, a court balances the transferee's unjust enrichment with the enablement of cheating by the transferor. Enabling a cheater to gain from his transaction would erode the legitimacy of the court.
Other jurisdictions may elect to disregard an unlawful purpose.
In situations involving illegality, it can become difficult to distinguish implementation of a resulting trust theory (implied by operation of law) from an oral express trust (one implied by the facts). A transferor failing upon one theory might still prevail upon the other.
