Joel v. Joel


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00474-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00474-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-01-2010
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wills & estates - Constructive trust - Unjust enrichment - Doctrine of laches
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Graves, P.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-11-2009
Appealed from: Bolivar County Chancery Court
Judge: William Willard
Disposition: Following a two-day trial, the chancellor imposed a constructive trust based on his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“FFCL”). He ordered that Mr. Joel receive title to the house in fee simple.
Case Number: 2007-0421

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Debra Joel, as Executrix of the Estate of Jimmy Joel, Lindsey Meador, as Trustee for the James J. "Jimmy" Joel, Testamentary Marital Trust and as Trustee for the James J. "Jimmy" Joel Family Trust




CHARLES EDWIN ROSS, KATHERINE A. HALL, WILLIAM B. LOVETT, JR.



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: James H. Joel and Estate of Margaret R. Joe GERALD H. JACKS, AMY CHICORELLI  

    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

    Topic: Wills & estates - Constructive trust - Unjust enrichment - Doctrine of laches

    Summary of the Facts: Jimmy Joel persuaded his elderly parents to purchase a house. Without the Joels’ knowledge, Jimmy had his lawyer include in the deed a provision that transferred title to himself upon the death of either of his parents. When the Joels learned what Jimmy had done, they confronted him, and Jimmy agreed to remove the provision. But before doing so, he unexpectedly died. Unable to persuade Jimmy’s widow, Debra, to change the deed, the Joels filed this suit to obtain fee-simple title. Because the Joels had no contract with Jimmy, they had no legal remedy, so the chancellor imposed an equitable trust. The Estate appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The rule is that equity follows the law as far as the law goes in securing the rights of the parties and no further. When the law stops short of securing this object, equity continues the remedy until complete justice is done. Although Jimmy arranged for the Shackelfords to sell the house to his parents, he was not a party to the sale. He neither bargained for nor paid for the benefit he arranged for himself in the deed. Neither party to the sale was accused of any wrongful conduct, so the Joels had no legal remedy, and the chancellor appropriately turned to equity. The Estate argues that, unless the chancellor found a confidential relationship, he was without authority to impose a constructive trust. Examples of wrongful conduct that may justify imposition of a constructive trust include fraud, actual or constructive; duress; abuse of confidence; commission of wrong; any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionable means; and any way against equity and good conscience. The chancellor found Jimmy and his parents were in a confidential relationship of the “moral, personal” variety. The record includes ample proof that Jimmy’s parents relied on him to make all the arrangements for the purchase, and to explain to them what a life estate was. The chancellor found that, when Mr. Joel expressed concern that a life estate might prevent them from devising or selling the property, Jimmy misled his parents concerning the legal effects of a life estate. Even though he knew that his parents wanted a title they could devise or sell, he secretly instructed his lawyer to draw up a deed with a life estate provision. The evidence amply supports the chancellor’s finding that Jimmy abused a confidential relationship. The trial judge also invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which applies to situations where there is no legal contract but where the person sought to be charged is in possession of property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another. Trial testimony provides substantial evidence on this issue. The chancellor found Mr. Joel’s testimony credible and in concert with other testimony. For example, the bank president testified he did not know about the life-estate provision and, had he known, he would not have made the loan; and Meador testified that Jimmy directed the drafting of the deed. The Estate argues that the chancellor should have applied the doctrine of laches. When a claim is subject to a statute of limitations, the defense of laches is not available. In today’s case, the ten-year statute of limitations applies, making any consideration of the doctrine of laches irrelevant.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court