Robertson v. Robertson

The trial court erred in denying the plaintiff ex-wife's claim seeking enforcement of an implied trust against the defendant ex-husband, as a reasonable jury could find that allowing the defendant to retain sole ownership of a property worth nearly $300K that the parties purchased and invested in together from the 1990s until 2012 would result in an inequitable windfall recovery to him.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Elizabeth Louise Robertson and her mother, Dorothy Keene, appeal the grant of partial summary judgment to Elizabeth’s ex-husband, Robert Robertson, in their action to set aside or modify the Robertsons’ divorce decree, for enforcement of an implied trust, and for conversion of property. On appeal, Elizabeth and Dorothy argue that the trial court erred in 1 finding that their request to set aside or modify the divorce decree was barred by a three-year statute of limitation; 2 rejecting their request for equitable relief, which was based on the existence of an implied trust, and finding that it was barred by a seven-year statute of limitation; and 3 finding that Elizabeth’s claims were barred because she had unclean hands. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Elizabeth and Dorothy i.e., the nonmoving parties,1 the record shows that the Robertsons were married on September 2, 1969. At some point during the 1990s, the couple purchased property that is the subject of this dispute, and the deed was in both of their names. Initially, the property was undeveloped, but the Robertsons eventually built their home there. In 2002, the Robertsons executed a warranty deed, conveying the property in fee simple to their only child, Melanie Collins. Elizabeth, who had a serious medical condition that often required hospitalization, testified that they conveyed the property to Collins because she was unable to obtain health insurance and Robert had retired. Specifically, Elizabeth was concerned that if she incurred substantial medical debt due to hospitalizations, a hospital or other medical creditor might obtain a judgment against the property. At the time of the conveyance, the Robertsons had a verbal agreement with Collins that they could continue to live on the property for the rest of their lives.

Robertson v. Robertson

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report