In Petherbridge v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 509, the Court held that a homeowner's monthly payments of impounds to the bank for the payment of real property taxes and hazard insurance premiums did not create a trust but rather was a debtor-creditor relationship. The homeowner made the impound payments together with the amount for principal and interest as part of a lump sum payment and did not separately designate the amounts. The court held that whether the parties intended to create a trust or debtor-creditor relationship was a question of fact. ( Id. at p. 517.) "The use by the parties of the word 'trust' or the words 'in trust' does not necessarily manifest an intent to create a trust relationship. The language employed by the parties is only one of the factors to be considered. 'The intention of the parties is to be ascertained from their words and conduct in light of the circumstances surrounding the transaction.' " ( Id. at pp. 516-517.) In Petherbridge, the language at issue was contained in the deed of trust and provided that the impound payments were to be held by the bank "in trust" to make the tax and premium payments or the bank could credit the payments directly to principal and interest payments due. ( Id. at p. 519.) In addition, the bank did not maintain a separate account for the plaintiff's impound payments but commingled those payments in an account representing a claim against its general assets. Further, the bank did not pay any interest on any income realized from its use of the impound payments. (Id. at p. 53.) The court held that the language in the deed of trust together with the conduct of the parties was inconsistent with a trust relationship. "In view of the fact the dominant purpose of the impound payment arrangement was to enhance the security of the deed of trust and, thus, to benefit defendant, not plaintiff, it would not be reasonable to expect that defendant would undertake the onerous responsibilities of a trustee." (Ibid.)