Steinberger v. Steinberger
1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 495, 140 P.2d 31, 60 Cal. App. 2d 116 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A constructive trust will be imposed on real property transferred by an absolute deed where the transferee, in a confidential relationship with the transferor, orally promises to reconvey the property and subsequently repudiates that promise, even if the promise is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Facts:
- Before or in 1929, Mary Louise Steinberger (Earle's grandmother) deeded encumbered real property in San Francisco to William Edward Steinberger, Earle C. Steinberger, and Earle's brother, each receiving an undivided one-third interest.
- On September 12, 1930, Earle C. Steinberger, at William Edward Steinberger's request, executed a grant bargain and sale deed of his one-third interest in the property to his uncle, William.
- William Edward Steinberger orally promised Earle to reconvey the interest upon Earle's request, and subsequently renewed and acknowledged this promise on multiple occasions. Earle executed the deed without consideration, reposing utmost trust and confidence in William and relying on his promise.
- William Edward Steinberger died on February 8, 1940, without having reconveyed the property, as Earle had not requested reconveyance prior to William's death, and William never repudiated the oral trust during his lifetime.
- After William Edward Steinberger's death, the administrator of his estate refused to recognize Earle C. Steinberger's interest in the property upon demand.
Procedural Posture:
- Earle C. Steinberger (plaintiff) brought an action against the administrator of William Edward Steinberger's estate in state trial court to establish a trust in an undivided one-third interest in real property.
- The trial court found in favor of Earle C. Steinberger, entering a judgment establishing the trust.
- The defendant administrator of William Edward Steinberger's estate appealed the judgment to the California District Court of Appeal.
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 constructive trust arise by operation of law in real property when a transferee, who was in a confidential relationship with the transferor and orally promised to reconvey the property, or their administrator, subsequently repudiates that oral promise, despite the Statute of Frauds?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, P. J.
Yes, a constructive trust does arise by operation of law in real property when a transferee, who was in a confidential relationship with the transferor and orally promised to reconvey the property, or their administrator, subsequently repudiates that oral promise, despite the Statute of Frauds. The court first acknowledged that an express trust based on an oral promise is unenforceable under Civil Code Section 852 (Statute of Frauds) and that oral evidence tends to vary the terms of an absolute deed. However, this action sought to enforce a constructive trust, which arises by "operation of law" to prevent unjust enrichment. California aligns itself with the view that equity will compel restitution through a constructive trust upon repudiation of such an oral promise, emphasizing that "the statute of frauds is never permitted to become a shield for fraud." The court found crucial the existence of a confidential relationship, which constitutes an exception to the general rule against enforcing oral promises to reconvey, as outlined in the Restatement of the Law of Restitution Section 182 and Restatement of the Law of Trusts Section 44. The trial court's finding of a confidential relationship between Earle and his uncle William was amply supported by evidence of their status (uncle/nephew, cotenants) and actual trust and confidence (e.g., mutual support, William's solicitude, statements about holding the home for the boys). In California, a breach of an oral promise to reconvey by a transferee in a confidential relationship is considered sufficient 'fraud' to create a constructive trust, as it prevents unjust enrichment under Civil Code Section 2224. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court held that a constructive trust does not arise until the transferee repudiates the oral promise or dies, which, in this case, occurred upon William's death and the administrator's subsequent refusal. Finally, the court dismissed the administrator's claim for a lien for advanced sums, concluding that, based on the evidence presented, William's expenditures were intended as a gift, and he received the benefit of occupying the property.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies California's position on the enforceability of oral promises to reconvey real property within confidential relationships, emphasizing equity's role in preventing unjust enrichment. By adopting a broad interpretation of "confidential relationship," encompassing both familial status and de facto trust, the ruling makes it more feasible for transferors to seek remedies against unfaithful transferees. This decision restricts the use of the Statute of Frauds as a defense for retaining property acquired through a breach of trust, thereby bolstering protections for individuals who rely on the integrity of those with whom they share a confidential bond. The case establishes that the repudiation of an oral promise, especially within such a relationship, is deemed a form of fraud sufficient to trigger a constructive trust.
