|
12. HIEBLE v. HIEBLE Supre Court of Connecticut, 1972, 164 Conn.56, 316 A.2d 777
1. Fact
The plaintiff, mother, transferred the title of her real estate by survivorship deed to her son, the defendant, and to her daughter without consideration in 1959 and the children would reconvey the property to mother upon request (1959 transfer). At that time, mother suffered from cancer and they orally greed that the transfer was temporary and mother spent all related expenses. In 1960, the daughter transferred her right to the plaintiff and the defendant. In 1964, the plaintiff requested the defendant the property right. Thereafter, the defendant refused the request saying that he would never marry and live with mother. However, the defendant married and move out in 1967. In 1969, the plaintiff filed a suit.
2. Issue
Whether an oral agreement between mother and son without consideration can be a constructive trust and enforceable.
3. Rules
1) Brown v. Brown, 66 Conn. 493, 34 A. 490; Todd v. Munson, 53 Conn. 579, 589, 4 A. 99; Dean v. Dean, 6 Conn. 284, 287-89
The defendant has not attacked the court's findings that the alleged agreement was in fact made, nor does he contest the receipt of parol evidence as having violated the Statute of Frauds.
2) Reynolds v. Reynolds, 121 Conn. 153, 158, 183 A. 394; Ward v. Ward, 59 Conn. 188, 196, 22 A. 149.
The Statute of Frauds does not apply to trusts arising by operation of law.
3) Suchy v. Hajicek, 364 Ill. 502, 509, 510, 4 N.E.2d 836; Wood v. Rabe, 96 N.Y. 414, 426.
A fiduciary duty does generate a natural inclination to repose great confidence and trust.
4) Brockett v. Jensen, 154 Conn. 328, 331, 225 A.2d 190; Davis v. Margolis, 107 Conn. 417, 422, 140 A. 823.
Since he does not attack the finding that there was an underlying oral agreement, he cannot question the sufficiency of evidence to support that finding.
5) Dowd v. Tucker, 41 Conn. 197, 205, cited in Fisk's Appeal
It is unnecessary to find fraudulent intent for the imposition of a constructive trust.
4. Application
The defendant did not challenge the fact that the oral agreement was not violate the Statue of Fraud and there was no consideration otherwise he could refute allegation of trust. In regard to a confidential relationship, though confidentiality should not always exist between parent and son, the Court stated that the sick mother and son’s reassurance could generate typical confidentiality. In addition, since the defendant admitted findings of the oral agreement, he could not question the sufficiency of evidence to support constructive trust. Therefore, the Court concluded that the 1959 oral agreement was itself constructive trust. In addition, whether there be fraud at the reception or a repudiation, it is matter that the defendant received the unjust enrichment of the grantee through his unconscionable retention of the trust res and his assertion to extinguish the oral agreement was unilateral. In addition, the defendant argued that the plaintiff prohibited the defender from marrying, however, Court pointed that his earlier reassurance that he would never get married.
5. Conclusion
The Court affirmed; the defendant in fact agreed reconveyance upon request and there was a confidential relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
6. Feedback
* Constructive trust
A constructive trust is not an actual trust by the traditional definition but a trust created through a court’s power, over assets they determine a party cannot equitably keep. It is a legal fiction that is used as a remedy for unjust enrichment. Hence, there is no trustee, but the constructive trust orders the person who would otherwise be unjustly enriched to transfer the property to the intended party.
|