## Facts

- In 1959, a mother, seriously ill after surgery for malignant cancer, conveyed her real property without consideration to her son and daughter by survivorship deed.
- The mother and the grantees orally agreed the transfer was temporary: the mother would retain control and pay taxes and expenses, and the children would reconvey the property to her upon request once the medical danger period passed.
- The mother remained in possession, continued paying all property expenses and taxes, and treated the property as hers.
- In 1960, after family conflict, the daughter relinquished her interest; through a straw transaction, title was placed in the mother and son as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.
- After five years, believing the risk of cancer recurrence had passed, the mother requested reconveyance so she could finance improvements for the home; the son refused and delayed, though he later signed a mortgage to permit an improvement loan while still retaining title.
- The son gave assurances about continuing to live with the mother and not marrying; he later married and continued to refuse reconveyance.
- The mother sued in equity for reconveyance, alleging the son held his interest subject to a constructive trust based on the oral promise and their relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether the son held his legal interest in the land subject to a constructive trust in favor of his mother based on an oral promise to reconvey and a confidential (mother–son) relationship.
2. Whether the Statute of Frauds barred relief based on the oral agreement concerning an interest in land.
3. Whether equitable defenses, including claims that later title changes extinguished any obligation and that the mother had unclean hands, precluded relief.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the mother and upheld the order requiring the son to reconvey his interest.
- The Court held that the trial court properly imposed a constructive trust because the conveyance was made in reliance on an oral promise within a confidential relationship.
- The Court held that the Statute of Frauds did not bar a constructive trust because such trusts arise by operation of law.
- The Court rejected the son’s defenses that intervening title transactions eliminated the obligation to reconvey and that the mother’s conduct barred relief in equity.

## Legal Principles

- When a transfer of land is made on an oral understanding that the transferee will hold for the transferor’s benefit and reconvey, and a confidential relationship exists, equity may impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment.
- Trusts arising by operation of law (including constructive trusts) are not barred by the Statute of Frauds, even though an express oral trust of land would ordinarily be unenforceable.
- The existence of a confidential relationship may be shown by dependence and trust in the transferee, especially where the transferor is vulnerable and relies on the transferee’s assurances and control over legal title.
- Changes in record title do not defeat a constructive trust where the underlying understanding and reliance persist and the transferee’s retention of the property would be inequitable.
- The doctrine of unclean hands bars equitable relief only for misconduct sufficiently related to the transaction and serious enough to make relief inequitable; ordinary motives such as health-related planning do not necessarily bar relief.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed reconveyance, holding that the son’s retention of title after an oral promise to reconvey, made within a confidential family relationship and relied upon by the mother, supported a constructive trust not barred by the Statute of Frauds, and that the asserted equitable defenses did not preclude relief.


Hieble v. Hieble, 164 Conn. 56, 316 A.2d 777 (1972)