In Osswald v. Anderson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 812, the trustors signed a declaration of trust, apparently intending to make their home an asset of the trust. The trust document failed to adequately describe the home or any other real property as being part of the trust assets, as the trust document purported to identify the trust property by referring to an attached schedule A, but then neglected to attach any schedule A. Under those circumstances, as no property whatsoever was described in the trust document, there was no writing identifying the trustors' real property that could be made more certain by reference to extrinsic evidence. (Ibid.) In Osswald v. Anderson, the court determined two trusts were invalid. In 1987, Heidi and Otto Osswald signed a trust naming themselves as initial trustees and beneficiaries. The 1987 trust referred to schedule A as listing the trust property, but no schedule A was attached. The court reasoned that although the 1987 declaration of trust signed by the Osswalds clearly expressed their trust intent, purpose and beneficiaries and purported to identify the trust property by referring to schedule A, the evidence was insufficient to establish the trust was properly funded partly because no schedule A was attached. ( Id., at pp. 818-820.) The court determined a second trust, the 1988 trust, was invalid although it adequately described the real property by attaching schedule A. The 1988 trust was invalid because it named Gary (Heidi's son) and Linda (Otto's paramour) as trustee and successor trustee, respectively, not Heidi and Otto, so that the Osswalds' signatures on the trust document were not sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. ( Osswald v. Anderson, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th 812, 820.) The court also concluded a 1988 quitclaim deed was invalid because it erroneously listed Otto and Heidi as grantees, rather than as trustees, which was insufficient to transfer title to the trust. (Ibid.)