## Facts

- Barbara Klein owned Oakland County real estate and decided to divide it among five of her six children, having previously helped the sixth child in other ways.
- One son, John Klein, had significant mental health issues, and Barbara believed it was unwise to vest title in him directly.
- On the same day, Barbara executed two relevant conveyances to her daughter, Edith Klein:
  - One parcel intended outright for Edith (undisputed).
  - A separate parcel intended for John’s benefit but placed in Edith’s name to protect John and avoid risks tied to his condition and potential creditors.
- The deed for the parcel intended for John was recorded but retained by another family member (Harold) rather than delivered to Edith in the ordinary course.
- Edith was not present when the arrangement was made; the record did not clearly establish when she first learned the purpose of holding title, but evidence showed she knew of it by the time of John’s death.
- After John died, his widow and son requested that Edith convey the parcel consistent with Barbara’s intent; Edith refused.
- John’s widow and son sued in equity to impose a constructive trust and compel conveyance.
- The trial court found Barbara intended the parcel to be held solely for John’s benefit, imposed a constructive trust, and ordered Edith to convey the property to John’s widow and son.

## Issues

1. Whether the statute of frauds bars relief when the claimed beneficial ownership arises from an unwritten arrangement concerning land titled in another’s name.
2. Whether a constructive trust may be imposed on family-held title when the evidence shows the titleholder was intended to hold for another’s benefit, despite the absence of a formal confidential or fiduciary relationship.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decree.
- The court held the statute of frauds did not preclude relief because the remedy was the imposition of a constructive trust by equity, not enforcement of an express oral trust in land.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the finding that Edith held title to the disputed parcel for John’s benefit and that equity required conveyance to John’s heirs.

## Legal Principles

- A court of equity may impose a constructive trust on real property to prevent unjust enrichment when legal title is held contrary to the purpose for which it was placed in the titleholder.
- The statute of frauds does not bar the imposition of a constructive trust where equity acts to prevent retention of property in violation of confidence and the transfer’s actual objective.
- A formal, technical confidential or fiduciary relationship is not an absolute prerequisite for a constructive trust when the circumstances show reliance and expectation that the titleholder would hold for another’s benefit.
- Appellate review gives substantial weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings on intent and purpose of the conveyance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an order requiring a sister who held record title to convey land to her deceased brother’s widow and son, holding that equity could impose a constructive trust based on the mother’s intent and the family arrangement, notwithstanding statute of frauds objections and without proof of a traditional fiduciary relationship.


Kent v. Klein, 352 Mich. 652, 91 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. 1958)