Junker v. Carlson
300 Neb. 423
Neb.2018Background
- In 1997 Dale and Carol Carlson conveyed real estate to a trust intended to benefit their three children (the Claimants). The trust property was later held by the Aebeskiver Company Trust (Trust) with Roger Wells as trustee.
- Trustee leased farmland to Joel and Elwyn Carlson (Tenants) in 2001, then sold the same property to SLS Partners (Buyer) in a sale-leaseback transaction; Buyer paid $200,000, leased back to the seller, and gave a repurchase option.
- While Buyer still held title, Trustee amended the Tenants’ lease in 2004, extending it to 2014. In 2007 the Trust exercised its option to repurchase from Buyer and immediately sold to a third party; to clear title the Trust paid Tenants $152,000 to relinquish the extended lease.
- Claimants sued Trustee, Buyer, and Tenants seeking a constructive trust and restitution, alleging Trustee breached fiduciary duties and Buyer/Tenants knowingly participated or were unjustly enriched. Trustee was dismissed after a bankruptcy judgment; claims against Buyer and Tenants proceeded to bench trial.
- The district court dismissed Claimants’ constructive-trust and unjust-enrichment claims, finding Buyer and Tenants dealt in good faith with Trustee and were protected under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-38,101. Claimants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Claimants' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buyer acted in bad faith in purchase and thus is liable to constructive trust | Buyer knew sale breached trust (sale price low, high return, leaseback terms) | Buyer dealt in good faith; Grantors participated and Buyer relied on counsel/title; no notice of breach | Court: Buyer lacked notice; Grantors participated; Buyer protected by § 30-38,101 — no constructive trust |
| Whether Tenants acted in bad faith in extending lease and accepting $152,000 | Tenants knew Trust lacked title/authority and were unjustly enriched by $152,000 | Tenants believed Trust owned property; extension and relinquishment had valid consideration; $152,000 compensated lost profits | Court: Claimants failed to prove Tenants had knowledge or unjust enrichment — claims dismissed |
| Whether $152,000 payment to Tenants constituted unjust enrichment | Payment was windfall for Tenants who paid nothing for lease right | Payment compensated lost future farming profits, and consideration existed for extension/relinquishment | Court: Payment was valid consideration; no unjust enrichment |
| Whether payment was made under duress/coercion | Payment allegedly obtained by duress/coercion | Duress/coercion not pleaded at trial; cannot be raised first on appeal | Court: Issue not considered on appeal (raised for first time) |
Key Cases Cited
- Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944 (constructive trust is equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment)
- In re Claims Against Pierce Elevator, 291 Neb. 798 (procedural posture and equitable remedies discussion)
- O’Connor v. Kearny Junction, 295 Neb. 981 (appellate review in equity; de novo review with deference to trial court credibility findings)
- United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Malone, 289 Neb. 1006 (elements and proof required for constructive trust)
- Estates at Prairie Ridge Homeowners Assn. v. Korth, 298 Neb. 266 (equitable review principles)
- Bend v. Marsh, 145 Neb. 780 (third party acquiring trust property: when beneficiary can compel restoration)