Summary
In Forbes v Clarke (194 AD2d 393), we again demonstrated flexibility in determining whether a confidential relationship existed, upholding a verdict imposing a constructive trust where the parties' relationship was merely described as being "undoubtedly close."
Summary of this case from Thomas v. ThomasOpinion
June 10, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Philip C. Modesto, J.).
In 1990, the parties purchased, in their joint names, title to premises in Bronx County. The evidence adduced by plaintiff, including documentary evidence, showed that plaintiff contributed the entire amount toward the purchase of the premises, and that defendant held title only for the purpose of securing a mortgage, that defendant had promised to convey her interest to the plaintiff after the sale. Defendant asserted that she had contributed $11,000 toward the purchase price, but could produce no evidence that she possessed the requisite funds, or that she transferred any such sum to plaintiff. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the parties, whose relationship was undoubtedly close, enjoyed a confidential relationship sufficient to sustain the imposition of a constructive trust, that there was a promise and a transfer in reliance thereon, and that to permit defendant to retain an interest in the premises would constitute unjust enrichment (see, Spodek v. Riskin, 150 A.D.2d 358, 361). The continuance of defendant's potential liability on the mortgage in the event of a default is not sufficient to defeat plaintiff's right to the imposition of a constructive trust (Coco v. Coco, 107 A.D.2d 21, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 637; Hornett v. Leather, 145 A.D.2d 814, 816, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 603).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.