You are here: / / CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED...

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER.

The Second Department determined a constructive trust was properly imposed on Florida property in this divorce action. The wife, who sought the constructive trust, alleged that marital funds were used to buy and improve the property and the property was placed in her husband’s father’s (Boris’s) name for tax purposes:

” The elements of a constructive trust are (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) an express or implied promise; (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise; and (4) unjust enrichment'” … . “[A]s these elements serve only as a guideline, a constructive trust may still be imposed even if all of the elements are not established” … . “Thus, although the elements of a constructive trust must be proved by clear and convincing evidence … , [t]he constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice'” … .

Here, evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the wife was related to the husband and Boris through marriage and that Boris allowed the Florida apartment to be used solely by the husband and wife as their vacation home for many years. Therefore, the first element for the imposition of a constructive trust was satisfied … . The wife also satisfied the second element by demonstrating the existence of an implied promise that [husband’s father] was holding title to the Florida apartment for purposes convenient to the husband and that the apartment belonged to the husband and wife … . She also demonstrated that, in reliance on that implied promise, marital funds were used to purchase the apartment and to make renovations costing more than $150,000 … . Furthermore, the wife demonstrated that a constructive trust was necessary ” to satisfy the demands of justice'” … . Kaprov v Stalinsky, 2016 NY Slip Op 08509, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

FAMILY LAW (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)/EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)

You might also like
REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
Separate Dispositional Hearing to Determine Best Interests of the Child Appropriate in Mental Illness Parental-Rights Termination Proceeding
Civil Contempt Finding Appropriate—Defendant Failed to Comply With Order to Pay Attorney’s Fees
BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED.
Fall After Coverage Ceased Not Covered, Even though Dangerous Condition Alleged to Have Existed Before Termination of Coverage
THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).
OWNER OF REGULATED WETLANDS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED VALUATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTING THE PREMIUM A KNOWLEDGEABLE BUYER MIGHT PAY FOR A POTENTIAL CHANGE TO A MORE VALUABLE USE (SECOND DEPT).
COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS; HOWEVER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT MAY BE MADE A COMPONENT OF CURRENT PARENTAL ACCESS (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

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND. SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A...