6
complaint and the grant deed specify that the building’s title is held by
appellants as trustees, not by the trust.
Even apart from these circumstances, the law of trusts confirms that
the building’s title is held by appellants as trustees, because trusts do not
themselves as entities hold title to property. “Unlike a corporation, a trust is
not a legal entity.” (Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1343.)
Rather, a trust is “ ‘a fiduciary relationship with respect to property.’ ”
(Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124, 1132, fn. 3, quoting
Rest.2d Trusts, § 2, p. 6.) When property is held in trust, “ ‘there is always a
divided ownership of property,’ ” generally with the trustee holding legal title
and the beneficiary holding equitable title. (Gonsalves v. Hodgson (1951)
38 Cal.2d 91, 98; Beyer v. Tahoe Sands Resort (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1458,
1475; Galdjie, at p. 1343; Herrick v. State of California (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d
156, 161; see Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1298,
1319.)
Furthermore, when settlors transfer property to a revocable living
trust, there is even more reason to conclude that the property’s title is held by
the trustees, not the trust. Such property “is considered the property of the
settlor for the settlor’s lifetime.” (Estate of Giraldin (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1058,
1065–1066.) “[A] revocable inter vivos trust is recognized as simply ‘a
probate avoidance device,’ ” and “when property is held in this type of trust,
the settlor and lifetime beneficiary ‘ “has the equivalent of full ownership of
the property.” ’ ” (Zanelli v. McGrath (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 615, 633–634;
Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1320.)
The tenants point to decisions supposedly establishing that “a trust has
the capacity to own property.”7 To be sure, some cases, including the two the