Facts: Shulman and Wilson argue for a verbal agreement with Perepolkin, forming an express trust for a property they all intended to benefit from equally. Perepolkin, now the registered owner, disputes the existence of such an agreement.
Issue: The central legal issue is whether the alleged verbal agreement can establish an express trust over the property, challenging the presumption of indefeasible title held by Perepolkin.
Court’s Ruling: The court found the plaintiffs' evidence insufficient to prove the existence of an express trust. It ruled in favor of Perepolkin, maintaining his sole ownership of the property.
Costs/Damages: The document does not explicitly state the amount of costs or damages awarded. However, it typically involves legal fees and possibly other expenses related to the litigation process.
