ALAN R. TRUSTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PHYLLIS T. GELFMAN AND MORTON MYERSON, ETC., 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 affirmed summary judgment dismissing a resulting trust claim against an estate on laches grounds, holding that the claim was barred because it was brought approximately thirty-five years after the alleged oral agreement was repudiated.
A claim for a resulting trust based on an alleged oral agreement is barred by laches when brought more than thirty-five years after the alleged repudiation of the agreement.
[1] A resulting trust claim based on an alleged oral agreement is barred by laches under Florida law when brought more than four years after the origin of the claim, regardle…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlan Trustman sought to impose a resulting trust against his father's estate based on an alleged oral agreement. According to Trustman's own complaint…
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 Resulting Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alan Trustman appeals from an order of final summary judgment in a probate action seeking to impose a resulting trust against his father’s estate. We affirm.
The trial court properly entered summary judgment for the estate, as the action was barred by laches. Section 95.11(6), Florida Statutes (1997), provides:
Laches shall bar any action unless it is commenced within the time provided for legal actions concerning the same subject matter regardless of lack of knowledge by the person sought to be held liable that the person alleging liability would assert his or her rights and whether the person sought to be held liable is injured or prejudiced by the delay.
Pursuant to sections 95.11(6) and 95.11(3)(k) (a legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability not founded on a written instrument), Trustman had to assert a resulting trust within four years of the origin of the claim. According to the allegations of Trustman’s own complaint, his father’s repudiation of the alleged oral agreement that gave rise to the claim for a resulting trust occurred approximately thirty-five years ago. Under either the common law laches doctrine or the statutory laches provision, Trustman’s claim for a resulting trust was barred.