DAVID ALLAN KUKETZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSALIE BIBONA, APPELLEE
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.
Mr. Kuketz appealed a trial court's imposition of a constructive trust on his one-half interest in real property, which Ms. Bibona had conveyed to him based on his promise to marry her—a promise he made without any intent to marry. The appellate court affirmed the constructive trust but reversed and remanded on two procedural issues regarding attorney's fees and mortgage obligations.
The court affirmed the imposition of a constructive trust on Mr. Kuketz' one-half interest based on his fraudulent promise to marry, but reversed the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction on attorney's fees (which Ms. Bibona never requested) and remanded for the trial court to order Ms. Bibona to satisfy or refinance the mortgage to relieve Mr. Kuketz of his obligations under the existing mortgage.
[1] A constructive trust may be imposed where one gains property through actual fraud, abuse of confidence, or other questionable means, and in equity and good conscience sho…
[2] A trial court cannot reserve jurisdiction to award attorney's fees when attorney's fees were not requested in the pleadings.
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 court of equity may impose a constructive trust "where one, through actual fraud, abuse of confidence reposed and accepted, or through other questionable means gains something for himself which in equity and good conscience he should not be permitted to hold."”
Establishes the legal standard for imposing a constructive trust based on fraudulent conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Bibona conveyed a one-half interest in her home to Mr. Kuketz based on his promise to marry her, though Mr. Kuketz had no genuine intent to marry …
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 Actual Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
We affirm the trial court’s imposition of a constructive trust on Mr. Kuk-etz’ one-half legal interest in real property initially titled solely in Ms. Bibona’s name.
The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Ms. Bibona conveyed one-half interest in her home to Mr. Kuketz based on his promise to marry her when, in fact, Mr. Kuketz had no intent to marry Ms. Bibona. A court of equity may impose a constructive trust “where one, through actual fraud, abuse of confidence reposed and accepted, or through other questionable means gains something for himself which in equity and good conscience he should not be permitted to hold.” Saporta v. Saporta, 766 So. 2d 379, 381-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (quoting Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 422 (1927)); see also McElroy v. Gay, 155 Fla. 856, 22 So. 2d 154 (1945).
However, as conceded by Ms. Bibona, the trial court erred in two respects. First, there was no basis for the trial court to reserve jurisdiction on the issue of attorney’s fees. Ms. Bibona never requested attorney’s fees in her pleadings. Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991).
Second, the trial court should have ordered Ms. Bibona to satisfy or refinance the mortgage on the subject property so as to relieve Mr. Kuketz of his obligations under the existing mortgage.1 Lang v. Horne, 156 Fla. 605, 23 So. 2d 848-53 (1945).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . The original purchase money mortgage was solely in Ms. Bibona’s name. Shortly after Ms. Bibona conveyed a one-half interest in the property to Mr. Kuketz, she refinanced the property to obtain a better interest rate. Mr. Kuketz’ name was added to the new mortgage. Ms. Bibona testified that she did not take any equity out of the house when she refinanced the mortgage and she did not otherwise need or rely on Mr. Kuketz’ creditworthiness to be approved for the refinancing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Porte F. Quinn v. Phipps, 113 So. 419 (Fla. 1927)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Lang v. Jack Horne and his wife Celeste Horn, 156 Fla. 605 (Fla. 1945)
- Saporta v. Saporta, 766 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- McElroy v. GAY, 155 Fla. 856 (Fla. 1945)