## Facts

- Catherine M. Brown owned approximately 20 acres of rural real estate in Lafayette County, Missouri, with a modular home, a cabin, a lake, and a trailer on the property.
- Catherine had four children, including John C. Brown and Pamela K. Heitman (plaintiffs).
- In 1989, Catherine conveyed the property to herself and John as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- In 1997, Catherine conveyed her remaining interest to herself and Pam as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- In 1999, Catherine and John decided Pam should be added as a full joint tenant with right of survivorship, so all three would hold the property together.
- To implement that plan, Catherine, John, and Pam executed three quitclaim deeds at an attorney’s office: (1) John to Catherine, (2) Pam to Catherine, and (3) Catherine to Catherine, John, and Pam as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- The deeds were mistakenly recorded in reverse order, and the public land records ended up showing Catherine as holding the property in fee simple.
- In 2002, Catherine executed a beneficiary deed stating that, at her death, the property would pass to all four children as joint tenants with right of survivorship—reducing John’s and Pam’s interests from what they believed the 1999 transaction created.
- John and Pam discovered the recording problem and asked Catherine to correct it; she refused.
- John and Pam filed suit seeking equitable relief to restore the ownership arrangement intended in 1999.
- The trial court imposed a constructive trust in favor of John and Pam.
- Catherine appealed; after her death during the appeal, her son Joseph H. Brown was substituted as appellant as her successor in interest.

## Issues

1. Must a party prove actual or constructive fraud to obtain a constructive trust, or can a constructive trust be imposed based on mistake and resulting unjust enrichment?
2. Did John and Pam prove the facts supporting equitable relief by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence?
3. Did the trial court’s judgment imposing a constructive trust provide relief in a legally correct form that matched the ownership the 1999 transaction was meant to create?

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals held that a constructive trust is not limited to situations involving fraud; it may be imposed where, because of mistake and related circumstances, it would be inequitable for the record titleholder (or successors) to retain the property benefits.
- The court concluded the evidence showed, by the required heightened standard, that the 1999 deed transaction was intended to create a three-person joint tenancy with right of survivorship among Catherine, John, and Pam, and that the title problem resulted from the recording error rather than a later agreed change in ownership.
- Even so, the court vacated the trial court’s judgment because the form of the judgment did not correctly and precisely state the equitable relief warranted on these facts.
- The case was remanded with directions to enter a new judgment in favor of John and Pam that restored the property interests consistent with the 1999 intended joint tenancy and the court’s analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Review of a court-tried case follows *Murphy v. Carron*: the judgment will be affirmed unless unsupported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, or based on an erroneous declaration or application of law.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy used to prevent unjust enrichment when someone holds title under circumstances that make retention of the benefit unfair; fraud is a common basis, but mistake and similar equitable grounds can also support relief.
- Because a constructive trust alters rights in property despite record title, the facts justifying it must be proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
- When parties execute deeds intended to create a particular ownership arrangement, but a recording mistake causes the public record to reflect something else, equity may grant relief to reflect the intended transaction and prevent a party (or an estate) from benefiting from the mistake.
- The trial court’s decree must be drafted to match the proven equitable theory and to define the parties’ interests with precision.

## Conclusion

The court agreed John and Pam were entitled to equitable relief because the 1999 deeds were meant to make Catherine, John, and Pam joint tenants with survivorship, and the later title conflict stemmed from a recording mistake rather than a valid change in intent; however, it vacated the constructive-trust judgment as written and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment in John and Pam’s favor consistent with the intended joint tenancy.


Brown v. Brown, 152 S.W.3d 911 (2005)