MAXEY v. SAPP Et Al.
340 Ga. App. 116
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gloria and Dewitt Hugh Sapp, Sr. executed a joint will leaving the remainder of their estate to their five children equally; Gloria inherited the estate when Hugh Sr. died in 2001.
- In 2007 Gloria, concerned about a lawsuit against her son Larry, conveyed five tracts of land she had inherited to her son Dewitt Hugh Jr. (Buddy) and his wife Sharon; Gloria died later that year.
- After Gloria’s death, the siblings met and agreed on dividing the land; Buddy and Sharon deeded parcels to Karen and Ann (and Karen later to her daughter Kara), but did not deed the parcel identified for Lori Maxey.
- Maxey alleges Gloria intended equal division and that Buddy held title as a trust to protect the land from litigation; Buddy contends Gloria authorized him to exclude Maxey if she caused trouble and refused to convey under threats.
- Maxey sued to impose a constructive trust on the five tracts and to cancel subsequent deeds; the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and Maxey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a constructive trust may be imposed on the land Buddy holds | Maxey: Gloria intended equal division; transfers to Buddy were protective and he agreed to hold and distribute for siblings; deeds to others and his refusal to convey to Maxey show inequitable retention | Buddy: He received valid title from Gloria and had authority to exclude Maxey; no fraud proved | Reversed trial court: factual disputes exist about intent, agreement, and fraud; jury must decide |
| Whether parol (verbal) promises can support a constructive trust | Maxey: Verbal agreement and surrounding circumstances show intent to hold in trust | Defendants: Broken verbal promises alone are insufficient for constructive trust absent fraud | Court: Parol evidence admissible; a broken verbal promise can support a constructive trust if made fraudulently with intent to be broken — factual dispute for jury |
| Whether evidence of distributions to other siblings supports equitable relief | Maxey: Deeds to Ann and Karen and Gloria’s stated intent permit an inference of a trust and unjust enrichment if Buddy keeps Maxey’s parcel | Defendants: Deeds to others were proper transfers; no constructive trust shown | Court: These facts are analogous to Edwards and create material factual questions precluding directed verdict |
| Whether directed verdict was appropriate | Maxey: Sufficient evidence presented to let jury resolve intent and fraud issues | Defendants: No legally sufficient evidence of constructive trust or fraud | Court: Directed verdict improper under “any evidence” standard; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Troutman v. Troutman, 297 Ga. App. 62 (trial-court directed verdict/review standard)
- Ansley v. Raczka-Long, 293 Ga. 138 (constructive trust prevents unjust enrichment)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 267 Ga. 780 (allowing constructive trust where transferee deeded parcels to some beneficiaries but retained others)
- Parris v. Leifels, 280 Ga. 135 (broken verbal promise alone insufficient; must be fraudulently made with intent to be broken)
- Hood v. Smoak, 271 Ga. 86 (fraudulent inducement to transfer with no intent to honor agreement supports jury question)
- ASC Constr. Equip. USA v. City Commercial Real Estate, 303 Ga. App. 309 (fraud findings typically jury questions)