PORTER V. ZUROMSKI 6 A.3d 372 (2010) CASE BRIEF

PORTER V. ZUROMSKI

6 A.3d 372 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Porter (D) appealed a holding in favor of Zuromski (P) that established the existence of a constructive trust as an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment.

FACTS: P and D were romantically involved from 1993 through June 2007. They became engaged to be married in 1995, but postponed their wedding after P's brother was injured in an accident in 1996. The parties lived with P's mother in Fort Washington, Maryland, for approximately three years, during which time D assisted around the house and in caring for P's brother, and P paid the rent of $ 600 each month to allow D to save money for the parties. D deposited his savings into a joint checking account held in both parties' names. The parties decided to purchase a home together. They were unable to qualify for a loan jointly. They agreed that D would apply for a mortgage loan in his name only. D paid a down payment of $4500 from the parties' joint checking account, and P paid D $3700 for her contribution toward the down payment. They agreed they would act as joint owners of the property and P would pay D one-half the mortgage expenses, and one half of all other property expenses each month. The parties agreed that D's name would appear on the deed, but he would hold the property for both parties. D promised P that in the future he would put P's name on the deed and that the property would be held in joint tenancy. Significant improvements were made with the help of friends of both parties. P's mother's friend installed the HVAC system with the understanding that the house was to be jointly owned by both. D's friends installed drywall and other improvements. P paid one half of all mortgage, construction loan, utility, and other expense payments on the property until the parties' relationship deteriorated in mid-2007. The parties ended their engagement, but the parties stayed together as a couple and P continued making mortgage and home expense payments to D. In May 2007, D moved out of the parties' shared bedroom in the house. In July 2007, on the termination of their romantic relationship, D ordered P to vacate the property. D refused P's request to divide the equity in the home, and D instituted a refinancing on the property which stripped a substantial portion of the equity out of the property. P sued claiming D's actions: 1) warranted imposition of a constructive trust; 2) required the establishment of a resulting trust; 3) unjustly enriched D; 4) constituted a promissory estoppel; 5) required entry of a declaratory judgment declaring that P was entitled to one-half ownership of the property; and 6) mandated injunctive relief. P got the verdict and D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner