Brown v. Brown
152 S.W.3d 911, 2005 WL 89036, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 87 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may impose a constructive trust as an equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment, even in the absence of fraud or other wrongdoing, particularly when a person acquires title to property through a mistake.
Facts:
- Catherine Brown became the sole owner of a 20-acre property after her husband's death in 1988.
- In 1989, Catherine created a joint tenancy in the property with her son, John C. Brown. In 1997, she executed another deed attempting to create a joint tenancy for her interest with her daughter, Pamela K. Heitman, creating a confusing title.
- In 1999, Catherine, John, and Pam met with an attorney, Joyce Kerber, intending to retitle the property in all three of their names as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- Kerber prepared three quitclaim deeds designed to be recorded in a specific sequence: one from John to Catherine, one from Pam to Catherine, and a final one from Catherine to all three of them jointly.
- On November 4, 1999, the Lafayette County Recorder of Deeds mistakenly recorded the deeds in the reverse order of what was intended.
- This recording error had the unintended legal effect of making Catherine the sole owner of the property in fee simple absolute, extinguishing John's and Pam's interests.
- On April 3, 2002, Catherine executed a new beneficiary deed, intending to convey the property upon her death to all four of her children (Joseph, Carolyn, John, and Pam) equally.
- After discovering the mistake, John and Pam asked Catherine to rectify it, but she refused.
Procedural Posture:
- John C. Brown and Pamela K. Heitman filed suit against their mother, Catherine M. Brown, in the Circuit Court of Lafayette County, Missouri (a trial court).
- The trial court found in favor of John and Pam, ruling by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that a mistake had occurred and imposed a constructive trust to restore their intended ownership interests.
- Catherine Brown, as the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
- While the appeal was pending, Catherine Brown died.
- The Court of Appeals granted a motion to substitute Joseph H. Brown, an heir and successor in interest to Catherine's property, as the Appellant in the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Missouri law permit a court to impose a constructive trust on property to prevent unjust enrichment when the legal title holder acquired the property by mistake, without any showing of fraud or other wrongdoing by that person?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph M. Ellis
Yes, Missouri law permits a court to impose a constructive trust on property to prevent unjust enrichment when legal title was acquired by mistake, even without a showing of fraud or other wrongdoing by the title holder. The court rejected the appellant's argument that a constructive trust requires actual or constructive fraud. It clarified that while fraud is a common basis, it is not the only one. The court held that the primary purpose of a constructive trust is to remedy injustice, and unjust enrichment is a sufficient ground for its imposition. Citing modern precedent and respected treatises, the court established that a mistake, such as the clerical error in recording the deeds here, is a valid basis for a constructive trust because the retention of property acquired by such a mistake would be unconscionable. Although older Missouri cases limited the remedy to situations involving fraud, the court explicitly stated that the law has evolved to allow for broader application where equity demands it. In this case, Catherine was unjustly enriched by the recording error, and her subsequent refusal to correct the mistake justified the court's equitable intervention.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Missouri's law on constructive trusts by moving away from a rigid historical requirement of fraud. It firmly establishes that unjust enrichment, especially when resulting from a mistake, is a standalone ground for this equitable remedy. This expands the flexibility of courts to correct title defects and prevent unfair outcomes that do not involve traditional wrongdoing. The case provides a crucial precedent for situations involving clerical errors, scriveners' errors, or other mistakes by third parties that result in an inequitable distribution of property rights.
