425 S.W.3d 845
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Dallas R. Gregory appeals a trial court order (Jan 30, 2012) finding a constructive trust in favor of Pauline L. Gregory over a 2002 deed of homestead to Dallas.
- Plaintiff/Pauline alleged she conveyed the home in May 2002 based on oral promises and a fiduciary/confidential relationship, intending future division among her children.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dallas induced the conveyance through false information and abused the confidential relationship, resulting in unjust enrichment.
- A life estate was created in 2008, and Pauline continued to live on the property; in 2011 she filed suit for a constructive trust.
- Gregory contends issues including ripeness, admissibility of unpleaded theory, trust based on future event, statute of limitations, and evidentiary sufficiency; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of unpleaded oral agreement testimony | Gregory argues the oral agreement was not pleaded | Gregory argues prejudice from trial testimony | No abuse of discretion; testimony conformable to evidence allowed |
| Timeliness of the constructive-trust claim | Gregory contends statute barred relief | Trust could arise without fraud; repudiation in 2009 started SOL | Claim timely; repudiation triggered SOL in May 2009 |
| Confidential relationship as basis for constructive trust | Confidential relationship plus abuse supports trust | Son–mother relationship alone insufficient | Evidence supported confidential trust; affirmed constructive trust |
Key Cases Cited
- J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State Bank, 310 Ark. 342 (Ark. 1992) (constructive trust arises to satisfy justice; fraud/overreaching remedies favor equitable relief)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 28 Ark.App. 295 (Ark. App. 1989) (constructive trust as implied remedy when beneficial interest should not follow legal title)
- Cole v. Rivers, 43 Ark.App. 123 (Ark. App. 1993) (constructive trusts to remedy fiduciary breaches and unjust enrichment)
- Berry v. Walker, 2012 Ark. App. 16 (Ark. App. 2012) (constructive trust may arise from violation of confidential/fiduciary duty; clear proof required)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 229 Ark. 649 (Ark. 1958) (fraud not essential to establish a constructive trust)
- Davidson v. Sanders, 235 Ark. 161 (Ark. 1962) (statute limitations tied to repudiation; constructive trust may commence then)
- Wright v. Union Nat. Bank, 307 Ark. 301 (Ark. 1991) (family relationship alone insufficient to establish constructive trust)
- Hankins v. Austin, 2012 Ark. App. 641 (Ark. App. 2012) (equity review standard; de novo with deference to trial findings)