## Facts

- Benjamin Selman and James Bramlett entered a close personal relationship in 1977; Selman later left his wife and lived with Bramlett.
- Selman deposited about $7,000 into a bank account in Bramlett’s name.
- Selman claimed the parties understood Bramlett would use those funds to buy a house for their joint benefit and later convey title to Selman after Selman’s divorce.
- Bramlett claimed the funds were a gift and that he bought and owned the property outright.
- Bramlett purchased residential property titled solely in his name using the deposited funds.
- The relationship ended in late 1977; Bramlett refused to convey the property, and Selman sued in equity seeking a constructive trust and conveyance.
- The chancery court credited Selman’s account, found Bramlett held title as a constructive trustee, and ordered Bramlett to convey the property to Selman.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Bramlett held the property in constructive trust for Selman rather than as owner by gift.
2. Whether the alleged oral understanding concerning land and its performance were proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
3. Whether the Statute of Frauds barred Selman’s claim absent a written agreement to convey the property.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the decree requiring Bramlett to convey title to Selman.
- The Court held the evidence supported the chancellor’s finding that Bramlett held the property under a constructive trust for Selman.
- The Court held the Statute of Frauds did not bar enforcement because constructive trusts arise by implication of law and are excluded from the statute.
- The Court concluded the proof met the required clear and convincing standard, and it deferred to the chancellor’s credibility determinations and fact-finding in equity.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive trusts are excluded from the Statute of Frauds when state law provides that the statute does not apply to trusts arising or resulting by implication of law.
- A party seeking to establish an oral arrangement concerning land through equity must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both the making of the oral agreement (or understanding) and its performance.
- In equity appeals, an appellate court will not disturb a chancellor’s factual findings, particularly credibility assessments, unless the findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
- Where one party provides funds used to acquire property titled in another’s name under an understanding that the title holder will convey or hold for the payer’s benefit, equity may impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed imposition of a constructive trust and ordered conveyance of the property to Selman, holding that the Statute of Frauds did not apply to implied trusts and that Selman proved the parties’ understanding and his performance by clear and convincing evidence.


Bramlett v. Selman, 597 S.W.2d 80 (Ark. 1980)