Utah Court of Appeals

Does adding 'trustee' to a grantor's name limit a deed's conveyance? TWN v. Michel Explained

2003 UT App 70
No. 20010999-CA
March 13, 2003
Reversed

Summary

TWN brought a quiet title action against the Michel defendants over an eighty-three acre parcel. The dispute centered on a 1985 deed where Richard Christenson signed as ‘Richard A. Christenson, Trustee’ when conveying the property to Zions Bank. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWN, ruling that the ‘trustee’ designation limited the conveyance to trust interests only.

Analysis

In TWN v. Michel, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question in real estate law: when a grantor signs a deed with “trustee” after their name, does this limit the conveyance to only trust interests? The court’s answer provides important guidance for practitioners handling real estate transactions involving trusts.

Background and Facts

The case involved an eighty-three acre parcel that Richard Christenson acquired at a 1984 tax sale. In 1985, Christenson executed a quitclaim deed to Zions Bank, signing as “Richard A. Christenson, Trustee.” After subsequent transactions, the Michel defendants obtained title through a foreclosure sale. In 1998, Christenson executed another deed to TWN, this time signing simply as “Richard A. Christenson.” TWN then brought a quiet title action, arguing that the 1985 “trustee” designation meant Christenson had not conveyed his personal interest to Zions Bank.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a grantor’s unexplained placement of “trustee” next to their name on a real property deed results, as a matter of law, in conveyance of only a trust interest. The court also had to determine whether the doctrine of descriptio personae applied to this situation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the doctrine of descriptio personae, which treats certain descriptive terms as merely identifying the person rather than indicating a technical capacity. Drawing on Utah precedent from Boise Cascade Corp. v. Stonewood Development Corp., the court held that the unexplained use of “trustee” constitutes descriptive language that should be disregarded. The court noted that while Utah Code section 75-7-402(5) authorizes trustees to dispose of trust property “in the name of the trustee as trustee,” clearer language is required, such as “in my capacity as trustee for the XYZ trust.”

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of precise drafting in real estate transactions involving trusts. Practitioners should ensure that when trustees convey property in their capacity as trustees, the deed clearly indicates this intention with specific trust language. The court’s holding protects the integrity of real estate transactions by preventing ambiguous language from creating unintended limitations on property conveyances.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

TWN v. Michel

Citation

2003 UT App 70

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20010999-CA

Date Decided

March 13, 2003

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

The unexplained use of the word ‘trustee’ after a grantor’s name on a real property deed constitutes descriptio personae and does not restrict the conveyance to only a trust interest.

Standard of Review

Questions of law are reviewed for correctness, according no deference to the trial court

Practice Tip

When drafting deeds involving trust property, include specific language such as ‘in my capacity as trustee for the XYZ trust’ rather than simply adding ‘trustee’ after the grantor’s name.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Gillman v. Sprint

    May 6, 2004

    Commercial email is not unsolicited under Utah’s email act when the sender had a preexisting business relationship with the recipient, even if that relationship was terminated before the email was sent.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Murray v. Labor Commission

    June 28, 2013

    When reviewing agency applications of law to fact, courts should characterize the issue as a traditional mixed question of law and fact rather than applying an abuse of discretion standard merely because the agency has statutory authority to apply the law.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Workers Compensation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.