Tillman v. Mitchell
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01252-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-25-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Constructive trust - Refund of rent payments - Unjust enrichment Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2010 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: Eugene "Gene" Fair Disposition: DENIED TILLMAN’S CONSTRUCTIVETRUST CLAIM AND AWARDED MITCHELL $4,200 ON HIS COUNTERCLAIM FOR PAST-DUE RENT Case Number: 09-0856-GN-F |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Michael James Tillman |
GLENDA FAY FUNCHESS |
|
|
| Appellee: | David D. Mitchell | JERRY A. EVANS | ||
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: | Real property - Constructive trust - Refund of rent payments - Unjust enrichment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Michael Tillman filed an action against his half-brother, David Mitchell, for establishment of a constructive trust of a piece of property. Mitchell owned the property, and Tillman rented the house on the property from Mitchell. Mitchell filed a counter-claim for back rent on the property for May 1, 2009, through June 1, 2010. The chancellor found that no constructive trust existed. The chancellor also agreed with Mitchell on his counter-claim for past-due rent and awarded Mitchell $4,200, which represented fourteen months of rent at $300 a month. Tillman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Constructive trust Tillman argues that he and Mitchell made an agreement whereby Mitchell would purchase the house for $5,400, and Tillman would repay Mitchell $5,400 in monthly installments in exchange for ownership of the house. Tillman argues that he has compensated Mitchell for the property through the rent payments made thus far, and Mitchell should be required to convey the property to him under the equitable doctrine of constructive trust. A constructive trust is one that arises by operation of law against one who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy. For a confidential relationship to exist between two persons, there must be a relation in which one person is in a position to exercise a dominant influence upon the other. The evidence regarding Mitchell’s and Tillman’s intentions was conflicting at best. No evidence was presented that Mitchell planned to deed the house to Tillman at the time Mitchell purchased the house. Mitchell did not instigate the purchase of the property but only did so at Tillman’s request. There was no evidence of a confidential relationship between Tillman and Mitchell other than Tillman’s testimony that the two were raised as brothers. Tillman himself testified that his sister was an attorney, and Mitchell was not the person anyone in the family usually sought out for business advice. Thus, the chancellor could not find by clear-and-convincing evidence that the arrangement between Tillman and Mitchell resulted in a constructive trust. Issue 2: Refund Tillman argues that if a constructive trust was not established, he is entitled to a refund of the rent payments he made to Mitchell under the theory of unjust enrichment. An unjust enrichment action is based on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. It is an obligation created by law in the absence of any agreement; therefore, it is an implied in law contract. Mitchell was not unjustly enriched by the payments he received from Tillman. Tillman and his wife resided in the house owned by Mitchell at the time of trial, even though they had not paid rent since April 2009. The Tillmans did not put on proof that they improved the property or made any other financial investments in the property. In fact, Tillman would be unjustly enriched if he were allowed to live rent free for the duration of the time Mitchell owned the house. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
