Beal appeals by right the probate court’s order that imposed a constructive trust on funds kept in her name that had been raised to pay the medical bills of decedent Stephen R. Filibeck and requiring her to pay those funds to the estate of Stephen J. Filibeck. We affirm.
For the most part, the facts in the instant matter are undisputed. Stephen R. Filibeck had been employed by the state of Michigan, but was laid off as a result of budget cuts and lost his health insurance, among other things, as a result. Several months later, he was diagnosed with cancer, which would require extensive and expensive medical treatment. Laura J. Beal, one of Stephen’s daughters from a prior marriage, spearheaded a fundraising campaign for the purpose of defraying Stephen’s medical expenses. The campaign largely consisted of a benefit dinner that, through the efforts of Laura and numerous other people, raised approximately $45,000, which was deposited in an account in Laura’s name. However, Stephen later regained his health benefits when he was reclassified as a retiree. Stephen directed that a sum of money from the fund be used to pay off his mortgage, and some other funds were withdrawn on an as-needed basis for various unchallenged purposes. Upon Stephen’s death, approximately $30,000 remained in the account.
Stephen died intestate, survived by his wife, Heidi J. Filibeck, who is the personal representative of his estate; Laura; and his other child from the former marriage, Lisa Filibeck. According to Laura, shortly before his death, Stephen directed that the approximately $30,000 remaining in the account be divided equally between Laura and Lisa. Laura’s theory was that she raised the funds, so they should belong to her, and in any event, Stephen had given the money to his daughters during his lifetime. Heidi contends that the money remaining in the account properly belonged in Stephen’s estate, and further notes that some medical expenses remained outstanding and unpaid by Stephen’s insurance. Heidi’s theory was that the donations were meant to help with decedent’s medical and other bills, and were not for the daughters’ personal use. Some testimonial evidence supported the factual underpinnings for both parties’ positions. The trial court concluded that although Stephen had in fact instructed Laura to divide the funds between herself and Lisa, Stephen had no power to do so because he was not the owner of the funds at the time; therefore, the court imposed a constructive trust on the funds because they were donated for the purpose of Stephen’s medical treatment.
A constructive trust is an equitable remedy created not by intent or by agreement, but by the operation of law. In re Swantek Estate,
We see no clear error in the trial court’s finding that the funds at issue were raised for the purpose of covering Stephen’s medical treatments, rather than more generally for whatever Stephen might wish. Furthermore, there is no clear error in finding that the funds were donated rather than, as Laura contends on appeal, essentially profit derived from payments for goods or services. Although the form of the fundraising campaign did indeed involve some of the participants receiving some kind of consideration in exchange for their monies, the testimony unambiguously shows that the “consideration” was itself donated and that the form was merely an entertaining pretext. The Court takes notice that such fundraising campaigns — raffling off donated goods or services, charging to partake of donated food and drink, and the like — are common, and it is well established that courts look to the substance of things rather than superficialities. There is no doubt in the record that the money that ended up in the fund came to be there because the people who parted with the money intended to make donations for the purpose of defraying Stephen’s medical costs. Furthermore, although it is undisputed that Laura spearheaded the effort and expended considerable personal resources in doing so, the record does not show her to have done so singlehandedly.
The instant case is in many ways similar to Babcock v Fisk,
As in Babcock, the donors of the funds at issue unambiguously did not intend to make them an outright gift. Rather, they were intended for a particular purpose, and the necessary implication is that those funds would in some way be administered
Nonetheless, also as in Babcock, the funds raised for the beneficiary’s needs ultimately turned out to vastly exceed what was necessary to carry out that purpose, which raises the question as to what, under the circumstances of this case, is the scope of the trustees’ duties. Babcock,
However, Laura’s own testimony shows that even she did not believe the money in the account was Stephen’s to use in any way he wished. She withdrew the funds from the account a few days before Stephen’s death, when it was apparent that he would not live much longer, but she indicated that had Stephen miraculously survived, the money would have remained intended for his benefit. Furthermore, although the testimony is not entirely clear, it appears that Stephen did not direct that Laura immediately consider the money to be hers and her sister’s, but rather that they should keep the remainder at some undefined point in the future.
In any event, a gift, whether inter vivos or causa mortis, requires not only intent to convey something and acceptance by the intended recipient, but also delivery or at least written instructions to make a delivery. See Osius v Dingell,
Notes
We recognize Laura’s argument that expending a portion of the fund toward Stephen’s mortgage may not have been in keeping with the intended purpose of the fund. However, although Heidi may have incidentally benefited because she lived in the residence, paying off Stephen’s mortgage was to his benefit and did involve paying a bill, albeit not a medical one. Consequently, we are not persuaded that it falls into the same class of ultra vires acts as a trustee’s paying out a portion of a trust to him- or herself.