Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Uncertainty will necessarily exist regarding the accuracy of any answer a lawyer may give to these hypotheticals, as posed. There simply isn't enough information. Vested in what way? What is A's role with respect to the trust - trustor, trustee, beneficiary or stranger? Why should X, or A's interest in X, be in the trust? Who made the mistake? Who is harmed by the mistake or by the status quo? It would be easy enough to say that the answers to all four questions is "yes," but additional information might change any of the four answers to "maybe" or "no."

I share Mr. Whipple's frustration with your ongoing effort to get an answer to your question without laying out a clear and specific statement of the facts of the situation. As he says, we simply cannot give anything approaching a good answer with vague and hypothetical facts, particularly when you keep using the term "vested" in a way that is inconsistent with its meaning in the law. For example, you say "A is vested in a property X." That is a completely meaningless statement to lawyers. You say "A's ownership is a mistake and should have been in a trust. . . ." What mistake? What trust? Why was it supposed to be in a trust? The bottom line is that the questions are not crazy, they are just devoid of any real meaning because they are so vague.