- in United Kingdom
- within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
Constructive trust claims regularly arise in trusts and estates litigation. Based upon a recent decision that Suffolk County Surrogate Vincent J. Messina, Jr. issued, in which the Surrogate found that a constructive trust should be imposed on certain assets, I write to provide a short summary of the law that governs constructive trust claims, and how Surrogate Messina applied that law in the case that he decided.
When a party acquires legal title to property in a manner in which good conscience prevents that party from maintaining a beneficial interest in the property, equity can convert the legal title owner into a trustee who holds the property for the benefit of another party who rightfully has a beneficial interest in the property under a constructive trust theory (Matter of Mantia, File No. 2019-4334/B, Decision and Order, dated Sept. 30, 2025 [Sur Ct, Suffolk County] [Messina, S.]). A "constructive trust is an equitable remedy whose purpose is to prevent unjust enrichment" (id.). It can be put in place "whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice" (id.).
A "party asserting a constructive trust [claim] has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence (1) the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, express or implied[,] (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment" (id. [citing Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119 (1976)]). "These factors, while useful, are not rigidly applied" (id. [citing Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233 (1978)]). Indeed, "even without an express promise, courts have imposed a constructive trust where a promise may be implied or inferred from the transaction itself" (id.).
In Matter of Mantia, Philip and Patricia were married for twenty-seven years (id.). In 2008, Philip and Patricia separated "and sold their marital home" (id.). They each used their respective shares of the proceeds derived from the sale of their marital home to purchase separate residences (id.). Philip purchased a Port Jefferson Station, New York home for $432,000 (id.). Patricia purchased a Patchogue, New York home for $462,800 (id.). In 2016, Philip and Patricia reconciled, and Patricia moved into Philip's Port Jefferson Station residence (id.). Patricia also sold her Patchogue home for $427,794.85, and used $367,800 of those funds to purchase a cooperative cottage in Hampton Bays, New York (id.). Patricia used her own funds to purchase the cottage, but added her name and Philip's name to the cottage's cooperative shares to satisfy the co-op board's income requirements (id.). Despite the fact that both Patricia and Philip held legal title to the cottage's shares, they always referred to the cottage as "Pat's cottage" (id.).
In May 2019, Philip and Patricia engaged in estate planning (id.). As part of a Medicaid plan, Philip's will disinherited Patricia "to the fullest extent permitted by law" and "directed that any portion of his estate [set aside for] his wife be given to a Supplemental Needs Trust for her benefit" (id.). Philip also specifically devised his interest in the cottage to Patricia's son (id.). In a trust that Philip executed, Philip left his interest in the cottage to Patricia's son after Patricia's death (id.). Philip's May 2019 estate plan otherwise benefitted Philip's nieces and nephew, including Rosemary (id.).
On the same day that Philip executed his will and trust, Patricia created an irrevocable trust (id.). In doing so, Patricia directed that her trust's assets be distributed to Philip's trust upon her death if she predeceased Philip, and that such assets pass to her son, if Patricia survived Philip (id.). Patricia's estate plan evidenced no intention on Patricia's part to benefit Philip's nieces and nephew (id.).
As part of the estate and Medicaid planning that they did, Philip transferred title to his Port Jefferson Station home to his trust, and Patricia's cottage's shares were to be transferred to her trust (id.). However, because the attorney for the co-op board "was going to charge $4,000 to transfer the shares into [Patricia's] trust", Patricia and Philip decided against incurring that cost (id.). They "decided to sell" the cottage instead (id.).
On September 19, 2019, Patricia and Philip sold the Hampton Bays cottage (id.). Neither Patricia, nor Philip attended the closing on the sale, as they both received treatment at a rehabilitation facility at the time that the closing occurred (id.). The attorney who handled the closing for Patricia and Philip delivered two checks for the net sales proceeds to them at the rehabilitation facility on September 19, 2019 (id.). On September 23, 2019, Rosemary "deposited two checks totaling" $422,233 payable to Patricia and Philip "into a Chase bank account titled in Philip's name alone" (id.).
On September 29, 2019, Philip died (id.). Two weeks later, on October 8, 2019, the attorney who helped Patricia and Philip with their estate planning held a meeting at his office, during which that attorney told Patricia's son that he represented Philip's estate (id.). The attorney told Patricia's son that "the proceeds of the [cottage's] sale should not have been deposited in the Chase Bank account, which was in Philip's name alone, and that Rosemary was supposed to transfer the money from Philip's account into [Patricia's] account" (id.).
Shortly thereafter, Patricia's son's counsel spoke with the attorney who had assisted Patricia and Philip with their estate planning (id.). Based upon information that the attorney who had assisted Patricia and Philip with their estate planning conveyed to Patricia's son's counsel, Patricia's son's attorney "wrote a letter to [the other attorney] wherein he stated that the sales proceeds which were deposited into [Philip's] account belonged to" Patricia (id.).
Because Rosemary, as the fiduciary of Philip's estate, refused to turn the proceeds derived from the cottage's sale over to Patricia's son, as the executor of Patricia's estate, he commenced a Surrogate's Court Procedure Act § 1809 proceeding to recover those funds from Philip's estate (id.). Patricia's son asserted constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and conversion theories (id.). Following the completion of discovery, the matter proceeded to trial in April 2025 (id.).
After the trial, Surrogate Messina imposed a constructive trust on the proceeds derived from the cottage's sale (id.). The Surrogate reasoned that "the four prongs of the test for a constructive trust (the existence of a confidential relationship, an implied promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment) [had] been established by [the] petitioner" (id.). Surrogate Messina wrote:
[Patricia] and Philip were in a confidential relationship, husband and wife, with Philip as the primary financial earner. The purchase of the Hampton Bays property was financed with the proceeds of sale of [Patricia's] Patchogue home, and Philip's name was added to the title of the Hampton Bays property solely to satisfy the financial requirements of the cooperative board. [Patricia] and Philip expressed to others that the cottage was [Patricia's] alone, and Philip retained his Port Jefferson property . . . in his own name. Thus the implied promise was that the transfer was effectuated for the purposes of qualifying with the cooperative board, not to convey the asset to Philip. This understanding that [Patricia] and Philip had separate properties and that the proceeds from the Hampton Bays cottage belong to [Patricia] is confirmed by their estate planning documents and was the understanding of their friends and their long-standing attorney[.] Thus, to allow Philip's estate to retain the proceeds is against equity and good conscience, and would unjustly enrich Philip's estate (id. [citations omitted]).
Surrogate Messina's decision in Mantia illustrates circumstances in which the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted. Hopefully, this blog post provides helpful background concerning the legal principles that govern constructive trust claims for parties who are contemplating raising them.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
