Latham v. Father Divine
Not provided (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a beneficiary of a probated will has prevented the testator from executing a new will in favor of another through fraud, duress, undue influence, or force, equity may impose a constructive trust upon the assets received by that beneficiary for the benefit of the intended legatees.
Facts:
- Mary Sheldon Lyon executed a will in 1943 that left the majority of her estate to Father Divine, two related corporate defendants, and an individual follower.
- After executing the 1943 will, Lyon expressed her intention to revoke it and create a new one that would benefit the plaintiffs, her first cousins.
- Lyon hired attorneys who drafted a new will that would have provided the plaintiffs with legacies totaling approximately $350,000.
- The defendants allegedly used false representations, undue influence, and physical force to prevent Lyon from executing this new will.
- Shortly before her death, Lyon again expressed her determination to sign the new will.
- The defendants allegedly conspired to kill, and did kill, Lyon through a surgical operation to prevent her from changing her will.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued the defendants in a New York trial court (Special Term) seeking the imposition of a constructive trust.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Special Term (trial court) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the denial to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the order of the Special Term and dismissed the complaint.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 a complaint state a valid cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust where it alleges that the beneficiaries under a probated will used fraud, undue influence, and physical force to prevent the decedent from executing a new will that would have named the plaintiffs as substantial legatees?
Opinions:
Majority - Desmond, J.
Yes. A complaint states a valid cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust under these circumstances. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy used to prevent unjust enrichment and is not limited by precedent but rather by the inventiveness of those who seek to enrich themselves unjustly. The court reasoned that while the plaintiffs had no legally protected interest but only an expectancy, equity can intervene to remedy a wrong where the law cannot. The court distinguished prior cases denying recovery as being actions at law seeking damages, whereas this is a suit in equity. The action does not seek to probate the unexecuted will or revoke the probated one in violation of the Statute of Wills; instead, it acts upon the property after it passes to the legatee, forcing the legatee to hold it in trust for the party who would have received it but for the legatee's wrongful conduct.
Dissenting - Lewis and Dye, JJ.
No. The dissenters voted to affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division's reasoning, which they adopted, was that the plaintiffs' claim was based on 'disappointed hopes and unrealized expectations' which are too tenuous to serve as a basis for recovery, following the precedent set in Hutchins v. Hutchins.
Analysis:
This case is significant for confirming that equity can provide a remedy for tortious interference with an expected inheritance in New York. It clarifies that a constructive trust is a flexible tool to prevent unjust enrichment, capable of being applied even where a plaintiff has no vested legal right but merely an expectancy. The decision distinguishes between actions at law, which may be barred for lack of a concrete legal injury, and suits in equity, which can act on the conscience of a wrongdoer. This precedent strengthens the power of courts to look beyond the formalities of a probated will to prevent a party from profiting by their own fraud, force, or other wrongdoing.
Unlock the full brief for Latham v. Father Divine