Tupper v. Roan
243 P.3d 50
| Or. | 2010Background
- Dissolution decree (2004) required Tupper to maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy naming plaintiff as beneficiary and trustee for the child.
- Tupper did not own any life insurance at dissolution nor purchase until February 2006.
- In 2006 Tupper bought a $600,000 United of Omaha policy naming defendant as sole beneficiary; ownership/premiums in Tupper’s name.
- Tupper died while the policy was in force and the proceeds were paid to defendant.
- Plaintiff sued to impose a constructive trust on $100,000 of the proceeds and asserted unjust enrichment and money had and received.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for plaintiff on unjust enrichment and imposed a constructive trust; Court of Appeals reversed; Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the decree creates an equitable interest in the policy proceeds | Tupper’s obligation binds ex-spouse’s entitlement to proceeds | Stranger to decree; no binding interest on defendant | Yes; decree creates an equitable interest in the policy at issue |
| Whether the policy at issue is the property subject to unjust enrichment/constructive trust | Policy proceeds are the property rightfully belonging to plaintiff | Policy not identified as plaintiff’s property; no basis for trust | Yes; the provision “any insurance owned by either party” identifies the policy at issue as subject to the trust |
| Whether defendant was a bona fide purchaser without notice or paid valuable consideration | Evidence shows defendant knew of the obligation; not a bona fide purchaser without notice | Evidence suggests consideration and possible notice; factual question remains | Factual question on notice/consideration; cannot grant summary judgment on this issue |
| Whether unjust enrichment requires strong, clear and convincing evidence | Unjust enrichment shown by breach of dissolution agreement | No sufficient, clear, convincing evidence tying proceeds to plaintiff’s property interest | Issue of fact; summary judgment improper on unjust enrichment; remand for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Albino v. Albino, 279 Or. 537 (1977) (constructive trust warranted in fiduciary/novel duties case; strong evidence required)
- Suitter v. Thompson et ux., 225 Or. 614 (1960) (constructive trust for unconscientious acquisition; strong evidence standard)
- Newton v. Pickell et al., 201 Or. 225 (1954) (trust follows property when transferred; transferee may be trustee upon notice)
- Clearwater v. Wagner, 272 Or. 491 (1975) (strong, clear and convincing standard for trust on identifiable property)
- Pantano v. Obbiso, 283 Or. 83 (1978) (constructive trust where funds or substitutes are involved; evidentiary standard)
- Larson v. Larson, 226 Ga. 209 (1970) (cases from other jurisdictions recognizing interests in insurance naming ex-spouse)