Jaffer v. Hirji
887 F.3d 111
2d Cir.2018Background
- Mohamed Hirji purchased a Hartsdale, NY house in 1982; title was placed in sons Ahmed and Mustafa's names as a family home.
- In 1989 Ahmed and Mustafa conveyed title to Mohamed and their brother Naushad as joint tenants; no consideration was paid.
- Mohamed died in 1998, leaving Naushad as sole owner; in 2001 Naushad deeded the property to himself and his wife Sabira.
- Plaintiffs (Ahmed, his son Shehzad, Ahmed's sister Latifa, and her husband Hussein) lived on the property rent-free for decades, paid taxes, and made improvements; Defendants (Naushad and Sabira) lived abroad and had minimal involvement.
- Plaintiffs sued after receiving a termination notice, asserting (1) title by adverse possession and (2) that legal title is held in constructive trust for Plaintiffs.
- District Court granted judgment on the pleadings denying adverse possession and later granted summary judgment for Defendants on the constructive trust claim; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession | Ahmed's long, continuous, exclusive, open, notorious, and hostile possession for the statutory period established title | Title transfers and cooperative family relationship defeated a hostile adverse-possession claim; no distinct hostile assertion after 1989 deed | Affirmed: judgment on the pleadings for Defendants — complaint lacked affirmative facts showing a distinct hostile assertion after Ahmed conveyed title in 1989 |
| Whether a constructive trust should be imposed on legal title | Ahmed transferred title in reliance on a confidential/fiduciary family relationship and an implied promise that family would occupy the home; Defendants would be unjustly enriched if allowed to keep title | Constructive trust is a fraud-rectifying remedy and requires more than subjective expectations or intent; no evidence of fraud or enforceable promise | Reversed in part: summary judgment for Defendants vacated and case remanded to determine whether an implied promise arising from the confidential relationship supports a constructive trust |
| Applicability of implied-promise authorities (Sharp, Sinclair) | Plaintiffs rely on Sharp and Sinclair to show constructive trust can arise from reliance in a confidential relationship even without express promise | Defendants argue New York requires fraud or more than intentions; constructive trust remedies shouldn’t enforce mere expectations | Court held Sharp and Sinclair may apply here; remanded for district court to compare facts to those cases and resolve factual disputes about implied promise and reliance |
| Request for appellate sanctions by Defendants | Plaintiffs’ appeal of constructive trust claim was colorable | Defendants argued appeal was frivolous and meant to increase costs | Denied: no sanctions because Plaintiffs prevailed on constructive trust issue and arguments were not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119 (1976) (constructive trust may be imposed where property transferred in reliance upon a confidential relationship even absent an express promise)
- Sinclair v. Purdy, 235 N.Y. 245 (1923) (recognizes constructive trust where transfer was made in reliance on family member's honor; express promise not always necessary)
- Bankers Sec. Life Ins. Soc'y v. Shakerdge, 49 N.Y.2d 939 (1980) (describes constructive trust as a fraud-rectifying remedy)
- Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. State, 5 N.Y.3d 327 (2005) (articulates the four-part test for imposing a constructive trust under NY law)
- Walling v. Przybylo, 7 N.Y.3d 228 (2006) (elements required to establish adverse possession in New York)
- Estate of Becker v. Murtagh, 19 N.Y.3d 75 (2012) (presumption of hostility for adverse possession is inapplicable where a close cooperative relationship exists; claimant must plead affirmative facts showing hostility)