Le v. Nguyen
2010 Ark. App. 712
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- Nguyen and Le lived together from 1994 to January 2006; they were 50-50 owners of Le’s Import, Inc., an S corporation that operated a car-repair business and held assets disputed in this case.
- In April 2000, Nguyen, a realtor, located an investment property in Fort Smith; the parties moved Le’s Import operations to 3600 Midland Avenue, Fort Smith, which operated for several years until 2006.
- The dispute centers on the purchase, funding, and ownership of the 3600 Midland commercial property, including mortgage, rents, and related assets.
- Nguyen alleged Le (i) hollowed out Le’s Import funds, (ii) entered a lease with a third party without disclosing her interest, and (iii) retained rents and assets; she sought a constructive trust and division of proceeds.
- The trial court imposed a constructive trust on 3600 Midland, allocating 27.5% to Nguyen and 27.5% to Le (with PLP owning 45% and Nguyen 55% via the arrangement), and awarded additional rent and asset distribution; Le appealed and the court affirmed.
- This opinion affirms the trial court’s constructive-trust ruling and related distributions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a constructive trust was properly imposed on 3600 Midland | Nguyen asserts elements were met via confidential relationship and unjust enrichment | Le contends elements or credibility insufficient to support a constructive trust | Yes; sufficient evidence supported the constructive trust on the property |
| Whether Nguyen suffered unjust enrichment from Le’s actions | Nguyen benefited from rents and ownership arrangement enabling Le to retain the property | Le argues no unjust enrichment occurred because benefits were shared via Le’s Import | Yes; Le would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain full ownership |
| Whether the circuit court’s ruling was ambiguous regarding abuse of confidence | Nguyen contends the court’s findings are clear about abuse of confidential relation | Le asserts the ruling lacked specific findings of abuse | No; the ruling was clear and the finding of a constructive trust was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Higgins, 2010 Ark. App. 71 (Ark. App. 2010) (elements and proof for constructive trusts; burden of proof clear and convincing)
- Slaton v. Jones, 88 Ark.App. 140 (Ark. App. 2004) (review of equity judgments de novo with due deference to trial-court credibility)
- Sparks Regional Medical Ctr. v. Blatt, 55 Ark.App. 311 (Ark. App. 1996) (unjust enrichment defined and restitution framework)
- Hall v. Superior Federal Bank, 303 Ark. 125 (Ark. 1990) (confidential relationship must be abused to create a constructive trust)
- Nichols v. Wray, 825 Ark. 326 (Ark. 1996) (burden of proving constructive trust and reliance)