e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 79046
Opinion Date : 03/02/2023
e-Journal Date : 03/13/2023
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Bar-Levav v. Bachar
Practice Area(s) : Real Property
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Rick, M.J. Kelly, and Riordan
Full Text Opinion
Issues:

Dispute over real property interests; Constructive trust; Unjust enrichment; Distinguishing Takacs v Takacs; Partition; Findings of fact; Judicial bias

Summary

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in concluding “plaintiff met her burden for establishing a constructive trust.” Also, it rejected defendant’s efforts to frame the case “as one involving a claim for breach of contract.” Further, the trial court did not err by dismissing his claim for partition of the real property at issue. Finally, the court rejected his claim the trial court was biased. The parties, while involved in a romantic relationship, purchased the property with the intent to build a home. Plaintiff, who provided the funds, agreed to add defendant’s name to the deed. When the relationship ended, defendant refused to sign a quitclaim deed. The evidence showed “that plaintiff allowed defendant’s name to be placed on the deed because he agreed to contribute his time and labor toward building a house on the property.” It was undisputed he failed to build the house. The trial court properly could find “it would be inequitable to allow defendant to retain an interest in the property where he did not perform the task that was the basis for granting him a shared interest in the property in the first instance.” Defendant claimed “he made considerable contributions” toward satisfying the parties’ agreement. But because $22,429.32 of his “claimed expenses were for items still in his possession, which he testified he could sell, the trial court did not clearly err by determining that these expenditures did not hold any current value for the property or provide a benefit to plaintiff.” It also did not clearly err by finding that his “remaining expenditures had no current value to the property because the clearing that was done in 2018 would have to be redone.” Thus, the trial court did not err by holding “that defendant would be unjustly enriched if he were allowed to retain half of the value of the property.” As to his reliance on Takacs, the court held that the trial court could properly find this case was factually distinguishable “because, although love and affection can constitute adequate consideration for a conveyance, that was not the consideration for plaintiff’s agreement to place defendant’s name on the deed in this case. Considering the evidence, the trial court did not err by imposing a constructive trust on defendant’s interest in the property and ordering [him] to convey his 50% interest in the property to plaintiff where [she] contributed 100% of the funds to purchase the property and defendant’s name was added to the title only because he agreed to build a home on the property, which never happened. Although defendant contributed toward some of the costs in preparing to build a home, so did plaintiff, in addition to the purchase price of the property, and those contributions did not add any current value to the property.” Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion