Briggs v. Lamvik
255 P.3d 518
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Kathleen Briggs and Thomas Lamvik are co-trustees of the Orville N. Lamvik Trust; Briggs appeals summary judgment dismissing her claims against Lamvik over Orville's residence and joint accounts.
- Orville added Lamvik as a joint signatory on his bank accounts in 2000 after discussing emergency access; he never explained donative intent and did not transfer accounts to the trust.
- Orville executed a revocable living trust and pour-over will in February 2000, directing equal division of assets between Briggs and Lamvik, but the accounts were not transferred to the trust.
- Orville deeded his residence in 2006 to Lamvik as an individual and trustee with right of survivorship; he died in 2008, after which Lamvik claimed ownership of the assets.
- Orville’s death triggered presumptions under ORS 708A.470 regarding ownership of joint accounts; the statute allows rebuttal by evidence of a different intent.
- The trial court granted Lamvik’s summary judgment on multiple claims; Briggs appealed, arguing disputed intent precluded summary resolution on several theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue influence in obtaining assets | Briggs asserts undue influence gave Lamvik ownership interests. | Lamvik contends no undue influence; survivorship and statutory presumptions control. | Undue-influence issue not shown; summary judgment upheld on applicable claims. |
| Orville's intent regarding joint accounts at death | Briggs argues evidence shows no intent to pass accounts to Lamvik. | Lamvik argues presumption stands despite lack of explicit intent evidence. | Triable issue exists as to intent; summary-judgment reversal on related claims. |
| Conversion, removal of trustee, money had and received | Briggs contends these claims depend on Orville's intent and Lamvik's control of funds. | Lamvik argues alternative grounds justify summary judgment. | Issues of fact on intent require remand for these claims. |
| Intent-based constructive trust and prospective inheritance | Briggs seeks remedies for unjust enrichment via constructive trust and inheritance interference. | Lamvik contends constructive trust is improper as standalone claim and undue-influence arguments are insufficient. | Constructive-trust claim dismissed; intentional-interference claim affirmed against undue-influence theory. |
| Rescission and financial elder abuse | Briggs seeks rescission and elder-abuse relief based on undue influence. | Lamvik argues no undue influence; no basis for rescission or elder-abuse remedies. | Summary judgment affirmed on rescission and financial elder abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Hall, 328 Or. 276 (Or. 1999) (intentional interference with prospective inheritance elements)
- Hemstreet v. Spears, 282 Or. 439 (Or. 1978) (conversion definition from Restatement)
- In re Martin, 328 Or. 177 (Or. 1998) (good-faith defense to property claims)
- Hicks v. Lilly Enterprises, 45 Or.App. 211 (Or. App. 1980) (good-faith possession considerations in ownership disputes)
- Church v. Woods, 190 Or.App. 112 (Or. App. 2003) (undue influence as improper means)
- Tupper v. Roan, 349 Or. 211 (Or. 2010) (constructive trust as remedial equitable relief)
- Brown v. Brown, 206 Or.App. 239 (Or. App. 2006) (constructive trust as remedy-specific doctrine)