You are here: / / Elements of Constructive Trust Not Demonstrated 
,

Elements of Constructive Trust Not Demonstrated 

The plaintiff had conveyed her 25% interest in real property to her cousin, allegedly with the understanding plaintiff would share in the proceeds if the property were sold. Eventually the cousin was deeded 100% of the property. The cousin lived on the property from 1989 to 2005.  The cousin deeded the property to her brother and his wife, the defendants. The defendants maintained the house and paid taxes on it, although they did not live there.  The plaintiff did not contribute to the property maintenance or taxes and did not submit any proof that the defendants had been unjustly enriched by owning the property (i.e. rental income). The Second Department upheld the referee in finding that the plaintiff had not proved the elements of a real-property constructive trust.  The Second Department explained the elements as follows:

“The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment… . These requirements, however, are not to be rigidly applied …. The ultimate purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent unjust enrichment, and it will be imposed ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” ….  Broderson v Parsons, 2013 NY Slip Op 03050, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

You might also like
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PREMATURE (MADE BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED) AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE COULD BE HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPPRESSION COURT’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PRECLUDED DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE JURY PROPERLY FOUND THE LANDLORD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO MAINTAIN A HANDRAIL BUT THE LOOSE HANDRAIL WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.
CANDIDATE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES TO SIGNATURES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION, ALTHOUGH THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS HAD TEMPORARILY MOVED OUT OF THE RESIDENCE DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS SHE INTENDED TO RETURN, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (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

Emergency Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant Bus Company Six-Year Delay in Raising Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Waived the Obje...