Court Determines If Daughter Held Property in Trust For Parents
Klara and Christos Koumantaros sued Cindy, their daughter, to impose a constructive trust on real property located in Bayside. When the property was purchased title was vested to the Klara and Cindy. Klara and Christos alleged that the parties had an oral agreement whereby Cindy agreed to hold title to the property as a convenience to them and to relinquish her interest to Christos upon his request.
Following a nonjury trial, Supreme Court issued a judgment, which declared that Cindy held title to the property as a constructive trustee for the benefit of the Klara and Christos and that they were the rightful owners of the property. Cindy appealed.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the Court’s authority was as broad as that of the trial court and the appellate court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts. Where the trial court’s findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court’s credibility determinations, as the trial court was able to observe the demeanor and credibility of each witness.
A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him or her into a trustee. The four factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted are the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer of some asset in reliance thereon and unjust enrichment.
Here, Supreme Court properly found that Klara and Christos satisfied their burden of proof with respect to the elements necessary to impose a constructive trust. As familial relatives, the parties shared a confidential relationship. And the evidence adduced at trial established that, although the property was titled in the Cindy’s name as a joint tenant with Klara, the Koumantaros expended their own money in order to purchase the property in reliance upon an agreement between the parties that Cindy would hold title as a convenience to her parents and would relinquish her interest to her father upon his request . And the evidence demonstrated that Cindy would be unjustly enriched by retaining legal title. The judgment of Supreme Court was affirmed.