18/02/2026
Although the statute requires trusts concerning land to be in writing, there are some situations where a trust can arise automatically by law, and those types of trusts are still valid, even if they are not written down.
If land is transferred in a way that makes the law automatically create a trust, or makes a trust pass, end, or change because of how the law operates, then that trust will still be valid and effective.
Even if there is no written document.
And this applies “anything in this statute to the contrary notwithstanding”, meaning:
Even though earlier sections say trusts must be in writing, this rule is an exception.
So what type of trusts is this talking about?
It refers to:
Resulting trusts
Constructive trusts
Trusts arising by operation of law
These are not created because someone expressly wrote “I declare a trust.”
They arise automatically because fairness or legal principles demand it.
Simple example:
If A pays for land but the land is registered in B’s name, and there is no evidence that A intended it as a gift, the law may presume that B holds the land in trust for A.
That is a resulting trust.
Even if nothing was written down, the trust is valid because it arises by implication of law.
Why this matters
Without this clause, people could use the “must be in writing” rule to commit fraud.
For example, someone could take property in their name after another person paid for it, then argue:
“There is no written trust, so I own it completely.”
This provision prevents that injustice.
In summary:
Express trusts of land must be in writing.
Trusts that arise automatically by law do NOT need writing.
They remain valid and enforceable.