Day v. Hupp, 528 S.W.3d 400

Betsy Faria changed beneficiary on a $150,000 State Farm life-insurance policy on Dec. 23, 2011, naming friend Pamela Hupp; Faria was murdered four days later and died intestate.
Leah and Mariah Day (Faria’s daughters) sued Pamela and Mark Hupp seeking the insurance proceeds, alleging constructive fraud and unjust enrichment based on an alleged promise by Hupp to use proceeds for the daughters.
Multiple witnesses gave conflicting testimony about whether Faria told Hupp the money was for the girls and whether Hupp promised to hold/use it for them; Hupp made inconsistent statements to family, police, and in depositions/trials.
Trial court (bench) found Hupp credible on key points, treated Hupp’s reported phrase “If you could… give them some money” as precatory (non‑enforceable), and concluded no enforceable promise, so plaintiffs failed to prove constructive fraud or unjust enrichment.
On appeal plaintiffs argued the court misapplied law and that evidence established an enforceable promise; appellate court deferred to trial credibility findings and affirmed judgment for the Hupps.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hupp made an enforceable promise to use proceeds for Faria’s daughters	Hupp promised and eight non‑party witnesses corroborate that promise; Faria relied on it	Hupp’s statements were conditional/precatory, she never made an enforceable commitment	Court: No enforceable promise; phrase “if you could” is precatory and insufficient to create legal obligation; deference to trial court credibility findings
Whether trial court misapplied elements of constructive fraud	Court applied fraudulent misrepresentation elements rather than constructive‑fraud standard	Any alleged misapplication was harmless because plaintiffs failed to prove an enforceable promise	Court: Even if error, no prejudice; outcome would be same; affirm
Whether unjust enrichment required proof of fraudulent conduct here	Plaintiffs say Hupp’s retention is unjust given assurances and trust; fraudulent conduct not required	Hupp says no enforceable promise, no unjust retention; trial court’s factual findings control	Court: Plaintiffs failed to prove the necessary elements (no enforceable promise / breach); affirm
Standard of review—weight/substantial evidence given conflicting testimony	Plaintiffs argue evidence overwhelmingly supports their version	Defendants invoke trial court’s credibility determinations	Court: Applies bench‑trial standards, defers to trial court on credibility and factual findings; affirms

Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2014) (bench‑trial standard: affirm unless no substantial evidence, against weight, or legal error)
Tobias v. Korman, 141 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (constructive fraud equated with breach of fiduciary or confidential relationship)
Fix v. Fix, 847 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. banc 1993) (clear, cogent, and convincing evidence required to establish constructive fraud)
Rouner v. Wise, 446 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. banc 2014) (precatory language generally insufficient to create enforceable trust; courts cautious imposing trusts on mere wishes)
Estate of McReynolds, 800 S.W.2d 798 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990) (absolute title not cut down by later expression of wish or desire)
Massey v. Massey, 464 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (informal writings and wishes insufficient where grantor understood formal estate planning)
Porter v. Falknor, 895 S.W.2d 187 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (distinguishing definite testamentary language from phrases expressing mere desire)