DAVID W. HUTSON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF W.F. HUTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK BROOKS AND GUSSIE BROOKS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a trial court's denial of a constructive trust remedy, holding that Jack Brooks breached a confidential relationship by refusing to release funds entrusted to him by Fred and Thelma Hutson unless they agreed to use the money for a specific purpose. The appellate court imposed a constructive trust on the remaining funds in favor of Fred Hutson's estate.
The court held that a constructive trust should be imposed on the funds because Jack Brooks breached the confidential relationship established when he was entrusted with Fred and Thelma Hutson's money by refusing to release the funds without imposing his own special condition.
[1] A constructive trust is an equitable remedy available when a confidential relationship has been abused.
[2] A confidential relationship exists where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A constructive trust is an equitable remedy available when a confidential relationship has been abused.”
Establishes the foundational principle for when a constructive trust is available as a remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFred and Thelma Hutson borrowed $35,000 in 1990, secured by a mortgage on Thelma's homestead property. After receiving the loan check, they transferre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidential Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
This appeal challenges a final judgment that denied W.F. Hutson’s petition for a constructive trust. David W. Hutson, W.F. “Fred” Hutson’s son, is personal representative for his father’s estate and was substituted in this action following his father’s death. We reverse because the trial court erred in refusing to impose a constructive trust on money belonging to Fred Hutson that was held by Jack Brooks.
Fred and Thelma Hutson were married for approximately 30 years. Both had grown children from previous marriages. In 1990, the Hutsons borrowed $35,000 and gave a promissory note that they both signed. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the 40-acre homestead owned solely by Thelma Hutson where both Fred and Thelma resided. The loan cheek was payable to Fred and Thelma Hutson jointly. David W. Hutson, Fred’s son, lent the money to Fred and Thelma and took the note and mortgage in return.
After receiving the loan check, the Hut-sons transferred $26,000 to Jack Brooks, Thelma’s son. Brooks was to keep and invest the money for the Hutsons’ use. When Thelma Hutson died, Brooks was holding approximately $19,000 of the original $26,000. After his mother’s death, Brooks refused to transfer any additional funds to Fred Hutson unless Fred would agree to use the money to reduce the mortgage on his mother’s property-
Fred Hutson filed a complaint seeking a constructive trust on the funds based on Brooks’ refusal to release the money. During the pendency of the suit, Fred Hutson died, the property was sold, and Brooks paid the mortgage in full. After a bench trial, the court denied the claim for a constructive trust and allowed Brooks to keep the $19,000 as a credit against the satisfaction of the joint indebtedness created by the note and mortgage. From this decision comes the appeal.
A constructive trust is an equitable remedy available when a confidential relationship has been abused. Traub v. Traub, 102 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). A confidential relationship is found “where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other.” 102 So. 2d at 159 (quoting Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419 (Fla.1927)). Jack Brooks was entrusted with money that belonged to Thelma and Fred Hutson. Thus, a confidential relationship was established.
[W]here one person having legal and equitable title in property transfers it to another with whom he has a confidential relationship to hold for a particular purpose, a constructive trust arises in favor of the promisee which may be enforced where the promisor acts in a fashion so as to harm the beneficiary’s interest.
Mayer v. Cianciolo, 463 So. 2d 1219, 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (footnote omitted). Brooks was entrusted with Fred and Thelma’s money. On Thelma’s death, Fred was entitled to the funds. By refusing to release any money unless Fred complied with his special condition, Brooks violated his trust. Thus, the trial court erred in refusing to impose a constructive trust.
Accordingly, we reverse. On remand, the trial court shall impose a constructive trust in favor of Fred Hutson’s estate on the money held by Brooks. Any claim Brooks may have for contribution as a result of paying the mortgage and note should be brought in the probate proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. Chanin, 940 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…tructive trust is an equitable remedy available “in a situation where there is a wrongful taking of the property of another,” Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) or “when a confidential relationship has been abused.” Hutson v. Brooks, 646 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “The trust is ‘constructed’ by equity to prevent an unjust enrichment of one person at the expense of another as the result of fraud, undue influence, abuse of confidence or mistake in the transaction that originates the pro…
-
Ben-Yishay v. Mastercraft Dev., LLC, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2008)….D.Fla.2006) (quoting Provence v. Palm Beach Taverns, Inc., 676 So.2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). A confidential relationship exists “ ‘where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other.’ ” Hutson v. Brooks, 646 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Traub v. Traub, 102 S.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)). A confidential relationship may exist between a “husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, attorney and client, principal and agent, or partner and…
-
Gratchev v. Gratchev (S.D. Fla. 2022)…79]) and Max argues, therefore, that Igor cannot maintain a claim for constructive fraud on behalf of Boston Stars. “A constructive trust is an equitable remedy available when a confidential relationship has been abused.” Huston v. Brooks, 646 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “A confidential relationship is found ‘where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other.” Id. (quoting Traub v. Traub, 102 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Igor’s Second Verified Complaint sets…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Porte F. Quinn v. Phipps, 113 So. 419 (Fla. 1927)
- Traub v. Traub, 102 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Otis Elevator Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ross, 463 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)