OCGA § 53-12-306 (a) (1)-(3). We are unconvinced by Rondowsky’s citation to Smith v. Francis , 221 Ga. 260, 144 S.E.2d 439 (1965), a case decided 45 years before our General Assembly’s 2010 enactment of the Revised Georgia Trust Code of 2010. See Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1, Act 506, codified at OCGA § 53-12-1 (a).

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260, 267(4)(b), 144 S.E.2d 439 (1965)."

See 89 CJS 734, Trusts, § 22, and 54 Am. Jur. 43, Trusts, § 30. As to the argument made concerning the effect of the trustee also being a beneficiary see Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260 ( 144 S.E.2d 439), and cases cited. The provision of the will conferring upon the trustee the very broad power to expend more of the estate for one of the beneficiaries than for the others, without being responsible to any person or court, was not intended to make him the sole beneficiary of the property of the estate but simply means that, in the faithful exercise of his discretion, he might distribute the moneys and property of the estate to meet the exigencies of the situation or the necessities of the three beneficiaries.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260, 267 (4) (b) ( 144 SE2d 439) (1965). Georgia law mandates that, unless a trust instrument provides otherwise, the authority of co-trustees to act on behalf of a trust may be exercised only by their unanimous vote.

"`A trust is an equitable obligation, either express or implied, resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with property for the benefit of some other person, or for the benefit of himself and another or others, according to such confidence.'" Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260, 267 ( 144 S.E.2d 439) (1965); see OCGA §§ 53-12-20 and 21. "Implied trusts are those trusts which are inferred by law from the nature of the transaction or the conduct of the parties." OCGA § 53-12-22. "

There being no issues of fact on the question of liability, the trial court did not err in failing to grant a directed verdict for Davis nor in directing a verdict for O'Callaghan on this issue. Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260 (5) ( 144 S.E.2d 439); Green Hotels, Inc. v. C. S. Nat. Bank, 108 Ga. App. 286, 292 ( 132 S.E.2d 800). 2.

an equitable obligation either express or implied resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with property for the benefit of some other person or for the benefit of himself and another or others according to such confidence.Peach Consol. Props., LLC v. Carter, 278 Ga.App. 273, 628 S.E.2d 680, 682 (2006) (quoting Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260, 144 S.E.2d 439, 444 (1965) (quoting McCreary v. Gewinner, 103 Ga. 528, 29 S.E. 960, 963 (1898) )); see alsoTrust,Black's Law Dictionary(10th ed. 2014) (“A fiduciary relationship regarding property and charging the person with title to the property with equitable duties to deal with it for another's benefit.”). By contrast, the Georgia Insurance Code defines an “annuity” as “a contract by which one party in return for a stipulated payment or payments promises to pay periodic installments for a stated certain period of time or for the life or lives of the person or persons specified in the contract.”

an equitable obligation either express or implied resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with property for the benefit of some other person or for the benefit of himself and another or others according to such confidence.Peach Consol. Props., LLC v. Carter, 628 S.E.2d 680, 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Smith v. Francis, 144 S.E.2d 439, 444 (Ga. 1965) (quoting McCreary v. Gewinner, 29 S.E. 960, 963 (Ga. 1898))); see alsoTrust, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("A fiduciary relationship regarding property and charging the person with title to the property with equitable duties to deal with it for another's benefit."). By contrast, the Georgia Insurance Code defines "insurance" as "a contract which is an integral part of a plan for distributing individual losses whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or to pay a specified amount of benefits upon determinable contingencies.

To establish that the Trust and Debtor's legal and equitable interests have merged, Trustee must establish that Debtor is the sole Trustee and sole beneficiary. Phillips v. Moore, 286 Ga. 619, 690 S.E.2d 620 (2010) (holding that a settlor is a sole beneficiary if he retains an unrestricted power of appointment, even if the trust names contingent beneficiaries to take the trust corpus if the settlor fails to exercise his power of appointment); Speed v. Speed, 263 Ga. 166, 167, 430 S.E.2d 348 (1993); Smith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260, 266, 144 S.E.2d 439 (1965) (declaring valid a trust with multiple trustees and discretionary beneficiaries).

SeeFirst Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati v. Tenney, 165 Ohio St. 513, 518, 138 N.E.2d 15, 18-19 (1956). See alsoSmith v. Francis, 221 Ga. 260, 144 S.E.2d 439, 444 (1965) (requirement of separation of legal and beneficial title still met when sole beneficiary of trust is also one of multiple trustees). Another essential element to the creation of a valid, express trust is identifiable trust res.