## Facts

- Sophie H. Palozie executed a document titled “Declaration of Trust” dated February 23, 1988, concerning a twenty-three acre parcel on Crane Road in Ellington, Connecticut.
- Sophie asked her grandson David (Donald’s son) and David’s wife Susan to witness her signature; they did not know what the document was and there was no proof Sophie explained it to them.
- The declaration used language suggesting transfer of “all personal property owned by me at my death,” creating uncertainty whether it was meant to create a present trust or operate at death.
- On the same date, Sophie executed a quitclaim deed conveying the Crane Road property from herself individually to herself “as trustee.”
- Sophie did not deliver either the declaration or the deed to Donald or any third party, did not record the documents in land records, and did not communicate to anyone that she had created a trust for Donald’s benefit.
- Sophie retained the documents; they were discovered in her home after her death.
- In later years, Sophie’s relationship with Donald deteriorated; she obtained a restraining order against him and executed a later estate plan inconsistent with Donald’s claimed ownership of the property via trust.
- After Sophie’s death, Donald applied in Probate Court for title and right of possession to the Crane Road property, relying on the 1988 instruments.
- The Probate Court ruled the purported trust invalid and treated the property as an estate asset; the Superior Court affirmed after a trial and denied Donald’s request to enjoin a probate-ordered sale.

## Issues

1. Whether Sophie manifested an unequivocal present intent to create a valid inter vivos trust and to impose enforceable trustee duties upon herself for Donald’s benefit.
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding the declaration ambiguous and ineffective, given Sophie’s failure to deliver, record, or communicate the instruments and her subsequent conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.
- The court upheld the finding that Sophie did not manifest an unequivocal intent to create a trust and assume enforceable duties as trustee.
- The court agreed the declaration was ambiguous as to whether it purported to create a presently enforceable trust or a testamentary disposition.
- Applying the clearly erroneous standard, the court concluded the trial court’s intent findings were supported by evidence and would not be disturbed.
- The Crane Road property remained part of the probate estate, and Donald was not entitled to title, possession, or an injunction preventing sale.

## Legal Principles

- An express trust requires the settlor to manifest an unequivocal intent to create a trust and to impose enforceable duties on the trustee; when the settlor names herself trustee, the intent to transfer beneficial ownership to another must still be clear.
- Courts may consider not only the instrument’s text but also surrounding circumstances and the settlor’s subsequent conduct when determining intent to create a trust.
- A document’s testamentary-sounding language may support a finding that no present inter vivos trust was intended.
- Failure to communicate the trust, deliver the trust instrument or related deed, or record documents affecting real property may support an inference that the settlor did not complete or commit to a present trust arrangement.
- Appellate review of a trial court’s findings on intent is limited; such findings are reversed only if clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court held that the alleged self-declared trust failed because the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the decedent never unequivocally intended to create a presently enforceable trust, making the property an asset of the estate rather than a trust asset for the plaintiff.


Palozie v. Palozie, 283 Conn. 538, 927 A.2d 903 (Conn. 2007)