Property disputes sometimes arise when someone obtains assets through wrongful conduct. A decedent intends to leave property to a particular beneficiary but dies before executing the planned will and estate plan. Family members who stand to inherit under intestacy laws allegedly prevent the decedent from signing the will. After death, the property passes to the legal heirs rather than the intended beneficiary.
The intended beneficiary faces a dilemma. The property legally belongs to the heirs under intestacy statutes. No valid will exists to support the beneficiary’s claim. Yet allowing the heirs to keep property obtained through wrongdoing seems fundamentally unjust.
Texas law provides an equitable remedy for such situations through the doctrine of constructive trusts. But can a court impose a constructive trust without a written trust agreement? Must the elements of a valid express trust be satisfied? Or do courts have broader equitable powers to prevent unjust enrichment when wrongdoing has occurred?
Pope v. Garrett, 147 Tex. 18 (Tex. 1948) provides an opportunity to consider these issues.
Facts & Procedural History
The decedent intended to execute a will leaving all her property to an intended beneficiary. However, she was forcibly prevented from signing the will by two heirs. After she died intestate, her property passed to her legal heirs under intestacy laws.
The intended beneficiary sued the heirs seeking to have the inheritance held in constructive trust for her benefit. She alleged that the decedent was wrongly prevented from signing the planned will. The beneficiary claimed the heirs should not be permitted to profit from their wrongful conduct.
The trial court imposed a constructive trust on the entire inheritance. The court of appeals modified this to exclude innocent heirs who did not participate in the wrongdoing. The Texas Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s broad constructive trust covering the entire inheritance.
What Is a Constructive Trust Under Texas Law?
A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to prevent unjust enrichment. Unlike an express trust created by the settlor’s intent and memorialized in a trust instrument, a constructive trust arises by operation of law. Courts impose constructive trusts to remedy wrongful conduct and restore property to its rightful owner.
Constructive trusts are generally not created by agreement of the parties. Rather, they are imposed by courts as an equitable remedy. The court declares that a person holding legal title to property must hold that property in trust for the benefit of another party. This declaration overrides the legal ownership rights that would otherwise exist.
The person against whom the trust is imposed becomes a constructive trustee. That person holds legal title but owes fiduciary duties to the beneficiary of the constructive trust. The constructive trustee must transfer the property to the beneficiary or hold it for the beneficiary’s benefit.
What Must Be Proven to Establish a Constructive Trust?
A constructive trust may be imposed when there is clear and convincing evidence that the person against whom the trust is imposed would be unjustly enriched if permitted to keep the property. The person seeking to establish the trust must have a clear right or claim to the property. There must be wrongful conduct such as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or other inequitable behavior.
The elements that must be established by clear and convincing evidence include: first, that the person against whom the trust is imposed would be unjustly enriched if permitted to keep the property; second, that the person establishing the trust has a clear and convincing claim to the property; and third, that one party has committed fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or other wrongful conduct.
The clear and convincing evidence standard is higher than the preponderance of evidence standard used in most civil cases. This reflects the serious nature of the remedy. A constructive trust overrides legal ownership rights and imposes fiduciary obligations on someone who did not agree to serve as trustee.
Does a Constructive Trust Require a Written Agreement?
The fundamental question in many constructive trust cases is whether any writing is required. Express trusts generally must comply with the statute of frauds when they involve real property. An express trust of real property typically must be evidenced by a written instrument signed by the settlor.
Constructive trusts operate differently. Because they are imposed by courts as an equitable remedy rather than created by the parties’ agreement, constructive trusts are not subject to the statute of frauds. No written trust instrument is required. The court’s judgment declaring the existence of a constructive trust is sufficient.
This makes sense given the nature and purpose of constructive trusts. The wrongdoer who is declared a constructive trustee never agreed to create a trust and would not voluntarily sign a trust instrument. If a writing were required, wrongdoers could defeat the remedy simply by refusing to execute trust documents. The equitable power of courts to impose constructive trusts would be meaningless.
Texas recognizes constructive trusts imposed by courts without written agreements to prevent unjust enrichment from wrongdoing. The absence of a written trust agreement does not prevent a court from imposing a constructive trust when the equitable circumstances justify this remedy.
How Did the Court Apply These Principles?
In Pope v. Garrett, the wrongful conduct consisted of forcibly preventing the decedent from signing her intended will. This conduct deprived the intended beneficiary of property the decedent wanted her to receive. It allowed the heirs to inherit property they would not have received if the decedent had been permitted to execute her will.
The heirs argued that because no valid will existed, they were entitled to the property under intestacy statutes. They contended that legal title had passed to them and should not be disturbed. The heirs who did not participate in the wrongdoing argued they were innocent parties who should be permitted to keep their inheritances.
The Texas Supreme Court rejected these arguments. The court held that wrongful conduct justified imposing a constructive trust on the inheritance notwithstanding the lack of a written trust agreement. The equitable remedy of constructive trust could be imposed to prevent the wrongdoers from profiting from their misconduct.
The court also rejected the argument that innocent heirs should be excluded from the constructive trust. Even heirs who did not participate in preventing the will execution would be unjustly enriched if permitted to keep property the decedent intended for someone else. The entire inheritance was subject to the constructive trust for the benefit of the intended beneficiary.
What Are the Benefits of Constructive Trusts as a Remedy?
Constructive trusts serve important equitable purposes in the legal system. The primary benefit is restoring property to its rightful owner. When someone has wrongfully acquired or retained property, a constructive trust can correct the situation and return the property to the person entitled to it.
Constructive trusts also prevent wrongdoers from profiting from their own misconduct. If someone commits fraud, breaches a fiduciary duty, or engages in other wrongful conduct to obtain property, they may be required to hold that property in constructive trust for the victim. This removes the incentive for wrongdoing by ensuring the wrongdoer gains nothing from the misconduct.
The remedy also deters future wrongdoing by sending a message that inequitable behavior will not be tolerated and will not result in financial gain. When courts consistently impose constructive trusts to remedy wrongful conduct, potential wrongdoers understand they cannot profit from misconduct even if they obtain legal title to property.
What Are the Limitations of Constructive Trusts?
Constructive trusts are powerful equitable remedies but they have limitations. The court will only order a constructive trust if it finds that the party who wrongfully obtained the property would be unjustly enriched if allowed to keep it. This can be difficult to prove. The clear and convincing evidence standard requires substantial proof of wrongdoing and unjust enrichment.
Establishing a constructive trust may require expensive and time-consuming probate litigation. The party seeking the remedy must file suit, conduct discovery, and present evidence at trial. The wrongdoer will likely contest the claims vigorously. Legal fees can mount quickly in complex constructive trust cases.
Even if the court orders a constructive trust, the party who was unjustly enriched may refuse to transfer the property. In this case, the other party would have to seek enforcement of the order through contempt proceedings or other means. This can add additional costs and delays.
Courts retain discretion in granting equitable remedies. A constructive trust is not automatic even when wrongdoing is proven. The court must find that equitable considerations favor imposing the trust. Other factors such as the conduct of the parties, the availability of alternative remedies, and the practicality of imposing a trust may influence the court’s decision.
The Takeaway
Texas courts have broad equitable power to impose constructive trusts as a remedy for unjust enrichment resulting from wrongdoing. A constructive trust does not require a written trust agreement or compliance with formalities required for express trusts. Courts can declare that legal title holders must serve as constructive trustees even when they never agreed to create a trust. The Pope v. Garrett case demonstrates that this equitable remedy can override legal ownership rights when necessary to prevent wrongdoers from profiting from their misconduct. Even innocent parties who benefit from wrongful conduct may be subject to constructive trusts if allowing them to keep property would result in unjust enrichment. The remedy serves important purposes by restoring property to rightful owners, preventing profit from wrongdoing, and deterring future misconduct. However, obtaining a constructive trust requires clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing and unjust enrichment, often involving expensive and time-consuming litigation.
Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin or the surrounding area? We are Austin probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 512-273-7444.
Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate administrations. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
