Summary
This New York Appellate Division opinion addresses an appeal from a trial court order granting summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff's claim to impose a constructive trust on a family-owned parcel of real property. The appellate court held that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden on summary judgment because genuine issues of fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff contributed funds in reliance on a promise to hold the property for his benefit and whether the defendants were bona fide purchasers. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's order to reinstate the constructive trust cause of action and reversed the grant of the defendants' cross-motion for possession.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's constructive‑trust cause of action.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants' cross‑motion for possession and declaration of ownership.
Holdings
- The trial court erred; defendants did not meet their initial burden on summary judgment, and the first cause of action is reinstated.
- The trial court erred; the cross‑motion is reversed and denied.
Key quotations
“courts have extended the transfer element to include instances where funds, time and effort were contributed in reliance on a promise to share in some interest in property, even though no transfer [of that property] actually occurred”
“the fact that . . . plaintiff never held any previous interest in the disputed parcel was not fatal to [his] claim”
Factual background
Plaintiff alleges his parents promised to hold title to a 108‑acre parcel for his benefit pending subdivision. He paid the purchase price, but after his father's death his mother transferred title to the defendants for $50,000. Plaintiffs seeks to impose a constructive trust on the parcel.
Procedural history
The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's constructive trust claims and later granted the cross‑motion awarding possession of the land to defendants. Plaintiff appealed both orders.
Remand instructions
The order in appeal No. 2 granting the cross‑motion is reversed; the cross‑motion is denied and the trial court is to proceed on the reinstated first cause of action.