Bradshaw

MEMORANDUM **

Donald Catlett and Jane Catlett appeal from the district court’s judgment following a bench trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . “We review the district court’s findings of fact following a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear, 85 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not err in determining that a trust was created in accordance with the terms of the 1988 Agreement between Cecile Bradshaw and Donald Catlett. The district court’s finding that the 1988 Agreement was a written memorialization of the understanding between Mrs. Bradshaw and Mr. Catlett at *535 the time Mrs. Bradshaw executed the 1987 Grant Deed is not clearly erroneous. Execution of the 1988 Agreement memorializing the oral agreement in 1987 to create a trust in the future took the 1987 oral agreement outside of the statute of frauds. See Ayoob v. Ayoob, 74 Cal.App.2d 236 , 168 P.2d 462, 466-67 (1946).

The district court did not err in concluding that no written document in the record executed by Mrs. Bradshaw and delivered to Mr. Catlett manifested an intent by Mrs. Bradshaw to revoke the trust. See…