## Facts

- Clarriette C. Henkle owned a family farm and her grandson, John R. Henkle, managed it for her for several years.
- On February 4, 1988, Clarriette executed a warranty deed conveying most of the farm to John while reserving a life estate for herself.
- The deed was prepared through Clarriette’s attorney; John was present at signing.
- Clarriette did not read the deed but acknowledged she understood she was signing deeds and transferring the farm to John subject to her life estate.
- Clarriette later asserted she intended John to keep the farm within the family and to later convey certain “home sites” to John’s brothers.
- John did not convey the home sites before he died on April 21, 1988, intestate.
- John’s heirs were his wife, Annette J. Henkle, and their minor son, Jacob R. Henkle.
- Clarriette sued to void or set aside the deed, alleging undue influence, mistake, unjust enrichment, and requesting a constructive trust.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Annette and Jacob, and Clarriette appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created a genuine issue of material fact that the deed resulted from undue influence sufficient to justify setting it aside.
2. Whether Clarriette’s asserted misunderstanding of the deed’s consequences constituted a mistake warranting rescission.
3. Whether unjust enrichment or a constructive trust could apply to divest John’s heirs of the conveyed property absent evidence of wrongful or inequitable conduct.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper given the evidence submitted on these equitable claims.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held Clarriette failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on undue influence.
- The court held Clarriette’s claim amounted to a unilateral mistake or disappointed expectation about future events, which did not justify rescission where she knew she was signing a deed transferring title.
- The court rejected unjust enrichment because the conveyance was a completed gift and there was no showing that retention by the heirs was unjust due to misconduct or breach of duty.
- The court declined to impose a constructive trust because there was no evidence of fraud, undue influence, duress, or other inequitable conduct supporting that remedy.

## Legal Principles

- A deed will be set aside for undue influence only upon clear and convincing evidence that the grantor’s free will was overborne; mere family relationship or generalized pressure is insufficient.
- A grantor who understands she is executing a deed transferring property generally cannot rescind based solely on unilateral mistake about the deed’s broader effect or about the grantee’s future conduct, absent fraud or misrepresentation.
- A completed gift is not reversible merely because the donor later regrets the transfer or expected the donee to act differently.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy aimed at preventing unjust enrichment typically tied to fraud, undue influence, duress, or similar wrongful conduct; it is not imposed to correct disappointed familial expectations without such conduct.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the nonmovant fails to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on essential elements of the asserted claims.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the validity of an inter vivos deed transferring a farm to a grandson (subject to the grantor’s life estate) and refused rescission or equitable reallocation after the grandson’s intestate death, because the grantor’s evidence did not raise a triable issue of undue influence, actionable mistake, unjust enrichment, or grounds for a constructive trust.


Henkle v. Henkle, 600 N.E.2d 791 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)