Constructive Trust: Remedy, Cause of Action, or Both?
I was recently in a contested court hearing where a smart and thoughtful attorney and an equally smart and thoughtful trial court judge were arguing over the nature of a “constructive trust.” Is it a remedy or a cause of action? I thought I knew the answer to this deceptively simple question. Turns out I was wrong. It’s both.
Case Study
Brown v. Regan, — So.3d —-, 2023 WL 4094879 (Fla. 4th DCA June 21, 2023)
In this case a summary judgment was reversed because the trial court judge failed to (1) specify the cause of action supporting a constructive trust as remedy or (2) detail the facts that establish the four elements of a constructive trust as cause of action. Apparently unable to determine from the record in what direction this case was headed, the 4th DCA provided helpful guidance for both. According to the 4th DCA a constructive trust can be both a remedy and a cause of action.
Constructive Trust: Remedy or Cause of Action? It’s Both
As is so often the case, the right answer depends on how the case is framed. Sometimes a constructive trust is a remedy …
A moving party must prove an independent cause of action that would support a constructive trust as a remedy, such as “unjust enrichment resulting from fraud, undue influence, or breaches of fiduciary duty.” See Est. of Kester v. Rocco, 117 So. 3d 1196, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding a constructive trust will not be available when the record does not demonstrate an underlying cause of action).
And sometimes a constructive trust is a stand-alone cause of action …
A party may also establish a constructive trust as an independent cause of action by showing: “(1) a promise, express or implied, (2) transfer of the property and reliance thereon, (3) a confidential relationship and (4) unjust enrichment.” Provence v. Palm Beach Taverns, Inc., 676 So. 2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
So saith the 4th DCA.
