In re Estate of Fournier, 902 A.2d 852 (Me. 2006) illustrates how a fundamental conversion of the trust relationship by legislation or otherwise into a juristic entity/person might well limit the trust’s practical applicability, particularly in the informal context. In 1998 or 1999, a one George Fournier asked X & Y if they would “hold some money for him.” After his death, he wanted them to turn the money over to his sister. The court concluded that Fournier had created an oral trust. X & Y were the co-trustees. They were equitably bound to hold the money during Fournier’s lifetime and turn it over to the sister in her individual capacity after his death, free of trust. If a trust were fundamentally a juristic entity/person, would or could the court, as a practical matter, have found a trust under these facts? If not, then what are the legal/equitable tools that the court would have had at its disposal to sort out the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties with respect to the money? It is suggested that to fundamentally convert a trust from a relationship into a juristic entity/peron would unnecessarily tear a substantial hole in the fabric of the Anglo-American legal tradition. Here is a link to the Fournier Case: http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061754902A2d852_11748.xml/IN%20RE%20ESTATE%20OF%20FOURNIER. The topic of deeming a trust a juristic entity/person for certain purposes is discussed in §8.15.77 of Loring and Rounds: A Trustee’s Handbook. The section is reproduced below in its entirety, including enhancements that will be included in the forthcoming 2016 Edition.