You are here: / / DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION...
,

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the differences between an action to impose a constructive trust and an action alleging unjust enrichment, here in the context of a couple’s investment in building a new house and the allegation one party put in 800 hours of unpaid labor which benefitted the other party.  The court held the constructive trust action was properly dismissed, but the unjust enrichment action should not have been dismissed:

Although the equitable claims of constructive trust and unjust enrichment are elementally related and involve overlapping proof, certain essential elements differ. “[A] constructive trust may be imposed when property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest” … . “The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise and unjust enrichment” … .As relevant here, with respect to the promise element, it may be express or implied, as determined by the circumstances … . “Finally, a person . . . is unjustly enriched when retention of the benefit received would be unjust considering the circumstances of the transfer and the relationship of the parties” … .

Importantly, and as relevant here, “the constructive trust doctrine serves as a fraud-rectifying remedy rather than an intent-enforcing one” … . By contrast, an action based on unjust enrichment, which would only result in a money judgment rather than a judicially imposed lien, requires the plaintiff to establish that “(1) the other party was enriched, (2) at [the plaintiff’s] expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . Clark v Locey, 2021 NY Slip Op 04176, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

You might also like
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE ATTACKERS’ INTENT TO ROB THE VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTIONS UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY THEORY REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Substantive Issue Raised by Petitioner Had Not Been Addressed in a Prior Proceeding Which Had Been Dismissed—Current Proceeding Therefore Not Barred by Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
PLAINTIFF, A NOVICE SKIER, WAS INJURED DURING A LESSON; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INSTRUCTOR UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK BY HAVING PLAINTIFF SKI DOWN AN INTERMEDIATE HILL WITHOUT ADEQUATE TRAINING (THIRD DEPT).
VERDICT FINDING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEGLIGENT BUT FURTHER FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE STUDENT’S SUICIDE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED BULLYING AT SCHOOL CAUSED THEIR SON’S SUICIDE (THIRD DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SOLE BASIS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT CASE; THE AFFIDAVIT, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
ACTION BY YARD WASTE BUSINESS WAS A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP), DEFAMATION AND RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST NEIGHBOR BASED ON STATEMENTS MADE BY THE NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE YARD WASTE BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
The Precise Terms of the Stipulation Were Not Demonstrated to Have Been Violated—Contempt Finding Improper
THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD 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

ALTHOUGH IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A CHANGE IN... FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO FATHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE...