In this case regarding the imposition of a constructive trust on certain real property, the dispositive facts have been stipulated by the parties. Jack O. Parris is the former father-in-law of Denise Leifels, who married Parris’ son on October 21, 1978. Parris gave his son and Leifels an undeveloped parcel of property, and the newlyweds built a home there using the proceeds of a construction loan. In 1979, Parris loaned his son and Leifels enough money to pay off this construction loan, and, in return, Parris’ son and Leifels executed a security deed on the property in favor of Parris. Parris’ son and Leifels made nine mortgage payments to Parris in 1980, but never made any other payments on the loan. Leifels paid the property taxes on the property each year. During times when Leifels’ relationship with her husband was strained, Parris promised her that, if she ever got divorced, she would continue to be able to use the marital property for herself and her children. In 2000, Leifels filed for divorce, and the final divorce decree awarded her possession of the property until her youngest child graduated from high school. Until that time, Leifels’ husband was required to make mortgage payments and maintain the home. After the youngest child’s graduation, the divorce decree stated that the property was to be sold, and Leifels would receive one-half of the proceeds, not reduced by any indebtedness.
When notified about the divorce, Parris began demanding loan payments. Some time afterwards, Leifels remarried and moved off the property. Afterwards, Parris foreclosed, buying the property himself at the foreclosure sale. It is undisputed that this foreclosure was proper and legal. Following the foreclosure, Leifels filed a request that a constructive trust be imposed over the property, alleging only generally that equitable principles would be violated if Parris were allowed to remain sole owner. On May 9, 2005, the trial court ruled in favor of Leifels, finding that the imposition of a constructive trust was necessary to prevent Parris from being unjustly enriched. Parris now contends that this ruling is erroneous.
