the TIAA contract refers to an “accumulation,” the quoted term appears to be nothing more than a figure of speech — a shorthand expression of the running tally maintained by TIAA of credits and debits pertaining to the computation of the Debtor’s annuity/death benefit. Put simply, the Debtor’s contract with TIAA neither explicitly nor implicitly restricts the latter’s use of premium payments. Consequently, and in stark contrast to the CREF account, TIAA was under no contractual obligation to invest the payments in such a manner as to protect or benefit the Debtor’s economic well-being. Since there is no identifiable “res” with respect to which the Debtor held an equitable ownership interest, the Court concludes that a trust was not established with TIAA. See Morter, 110 B.R. at 395 (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Hughes v. Sun Life Assur. Co.
holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government holding that the tiaa contract did not create a trust and noting that the contract provided for a guaranteed  fixed  income to the annuitant  irrespective of the portfolios later returns holding that the legal effect of a contract must be determined from words of entire contract and court may not violate the clear meaning to create ambiguity