Sinclair v. . Purdy
139 N.E. 255, 1923 N.Y. LEXIS 1173, 235 N.Y. 245 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may enforce an oral trust in real property, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, when either an informal written memorandum sufficiently identifies the trust, or when the property was conveyed within a confidential relationship, and the grantee's retention of the property would constitute unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- Elijah F. Purdy owned an undivided interest in real estate inherited from his father.
- To avoid the constant importunities of being asked to post bail, Elijah conveyed his interest in the property to his sister, Elvira Purdy, for no monetary consideration.
- Elvira subsequently used her and Elijah's combined interests to purchase two parcels of land at a partition sale.
- Elijah and Elvira maintained a close, harmonious, and confidential relationship throughout their lives.
- In a letter to Elijah, Elvira wrote, "Are you not as much interested in the houses as myself — surely yes."
- In his later years, Elijah went to live with his niece, Mrs. Mapes, and arranged that in return for her care for the rest of his life, he would devise his interest in the property to her.
- Elijah died without devising his interest to Mrs. Mapes in his will, and Elvira died a few years later with legal title to the entire property.
Procedural Posture:
- In a partition action for the subject property, Mrs. Mapes asserted an equitable counterclaim to establish a trust and compel specific performance of a contract to devise.
- A separate trial on the counterclaim was held in the trial court (Special Term), with issues framed for a jury.
- The jury found that Mrs. Mapes and Elijah had an agreement for her services, but the court directed a verdict that Elijah had no equitable interest in the property to devise.
- The trial court entered a final judgment adverse to Mrs. Mapes's claim.
- Mrs. Mapes (appellant) appealed to the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division), which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Mrs. Mapes (appellant) appealed 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 an informal letter acknowledging a shared interest in property, combined with the context of a confidential sibling relationship, create a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an enforceable trust over real property despite the Statute of Frauds?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
Yes. A triable issue of fact exists because the evidence could support the finding of an enforceable trust. The court provided two independent rationales. First, Elvira's letter stating her brother was 'as much interested in the houses as myself' could be interpreted by a jury as a sufficient written memorandum of the trust to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Although the description 'the houses' is vague, it can be made certain by extrinsic evidence showing these were the only houses she owned, under the principle of 'Id certum est quod certum reddi potest' (that is certain which can be made certain). Second, even if the writing were inadequate, a constructive trust could be imposed. The conveyance was procured through a confidential relationship between siblings, where Elijah relied on Elvira's 'sense of honor' rather than a formal written promise. In such conditions, where a transfer is made in reliance on a promise conjoined with a confidential relationship, equity will intervene to prevent the unjust enrichment that would result from the grantee's retention of the property.
Analysis:
This decision is a foundational case illustrating how courts of equity prevent the Statute of Frauds from being used as an instrument to perpetrate fraud. Justice Cardozo's opinion demonstrates a flexible approach, allowing informal writings and extrinsic evidence to satisfy the statute's requirements. More significantly, it reinforces the power of the constructive trust doctrine, establishing that a breach of promise within a confidential relationship is a distinct wrong that equity will remedy to prevent unjust enrichment, even without a formal writing.
