Sarah v. Primarily Primates, Inc., 255 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied).
A simian care center and a university entered into a contract under
which the university transferred to the care center several monkeys and
chimpanzees in exchange for the center’s agreement to provide the
animals with lifetime care. Considerable litigation regarding the
animals’ care ensued with an argument being made that the contract acted
to create a trust which would then be governed by Property Code §
112.037.
Both the trial and appellate courts agreed that the contract did not
create a trust. The court studied the contract in connection with
Property Code §§ 111.003 (types of trusts covered by Trust Code) 112.001
(methods of trust creation), and 112.002 (requirement of trust intent).
A contract which is devoid of trust intent cannot be transformed into a
trust. The contract was replete with contract language and did not
contain trust language such as “trust,” “trustee,” or “beneficiary.” The
court recognized that technical words are not necessary to the creation
of a trust but that nonetheless this contract reflected no evidence that
the original parties intended to create a trust for the care of the
animals.
Moral: A court will not turn a contractual arrangement between parties
into a trust just because there may be a socially valuable reason in so
doing (e.g., to grant non-parties to the contract standing to enforce).