You are here: / / No Rigid Formula for a Constructive Trust

No Rigid Formula for a Constructive Trust

The Second Department determined that a petition seeking to impose a constructive trust on an IRA properly survived a motion for summary judgment. The petitioners are the children of James (now deceased) and the former beneficiaries of James’ Oppenheiner Funds IRA.  The respondent, Holbrook, is the executor of the estate of James’ second wife (the decedent) and the current beneficiary of the Oppenheimer IRA.  The petitioners alleged that, in return for James’ naming the decedent the beneficiary of the Oppenheimer IRA, the decedent promised to sign a consent form making petitioners the beneficiaries of another IRA.  The petitioners alleged that, when presented with the consent form, the decedent refused to sign it:

…[T]he petition seeking to impose a constructive trust adequately states a cause of action to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds of the Oppenheimer Funds IRA. “The usual elements of a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relation[ship], (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon and (4) unjust enrichment'” … . However, these factors “are not an unyielding formula which limits a court’s freedom to fashion this equitable remedy’ and the requirements are not to be rigidly applied” … . Thus, a constructive trust “will be erected whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice” … .

Here, the marital relationship between James and the decedent provides the necessary confidential relationship …. . The petitioners have sufficiently alleged a promise by the decedent, a change in beneficiary of the Oppenheimer Funds IRA to the decedent in reliance upon that promise, and the decedent’s, and then Holbrook’s, unjust enrichment therefrom. Contrary to Holbrook’s contention, the petitioners possessed a sufficient interest as the previously designated beneficiaries of the Oppenheimer Funds IRA to seek to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds … . Matter of Harold, 2013 NYSlip Op 08629, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

You might also like
Proof of the Cause of Plaintiff’s Slip and Fall Need Not Be Based Upon Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge
THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DECEDENT’S CONSENT TO SURGERY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, THE CONSENT WAS AUTHENTICATED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV) DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, ESTOP THE DEFENDANT FROM CONTESTING SERVICE OF PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FORMER “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA)” PROVIDED IMMUNITY TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RE: COVID-19, HERE DEFENDANT NURSING HOME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMMUNITY WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MET THE DEFINITION OF “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” SUCH THAT FAMILY COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Special Duty Owed to Claimant/County Clerk Cannot Be Sued For Failure to... Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Construction of Shopping Mall/No...