## Facts

- George Ellis identified a 40-acre parcel and arranged for Roy H. King to purchase and hold title in King’s name.
- Ellis and King agreed that if Ellis found a buyer, King would sell and share profits with Ellis.
- Ellis procured Ernest Uhlmann as buyer; the arrangement included:
  - a written contract for King to sell the land to Uhlmann for $20,000; and
  - Uhlmann’s oral promise to convey to Ellis an undivided one-half interest in the land.
- King deeded the property to Uhlmann, who later denied any obligation to convey an interest to Ellis.
- Ellis (and King in a separate, consolidated action) sought to impose a constructive trust on an undivided one-half interest based on Uhlmann’s alleged breach of the oral promise and equitable considerations.
- The trial court found Uhlmann and his wife held an undivided one-half interest for Ellis’s benefit, subject to a $10,000 lien in Uhlmann’s favor for monies advanced/obligations undertaken.

## Issues

1. Whether the superior court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment because the action was filed and tried before a constitutional revision of the judiciary article, with judgment entered afterward.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported imposing a constructive trust giving Ellis an undivided one-half beneficial interest in the property.
3. Whether the statute of frauds or parol-evidence rule barred enforcement of the oral promise through a constructive trust.
4. Whether community-property principles and the wife’s absence as a party prevented the constructive-trust relief.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment imposing a constructive trust in favor of Ellis on an undivided one-half interest, subject to Uhlmann’s $10,000 lien.
- The court rejected the claim that judicial-article revision deprived the superior court of jurisdiction over the pending case.
- The court upheld the trial court’s finding of an agreement and the equitable basis for constructive-trust relief.
- The court held that the statute of frauds and parol-evidence rule did not defeat a constructive trust under the circumstances.
- Community-property arguments and the wife’s nonparticipation did not bar the remedy as fashioned, which preserved the lien protecting financial interests tied to the transaction.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional or statutory reorganization of courts does not, absent clear intent, abate pending actions or extinguish accrued rights; courts retain authority to complete adjudication.
- A constructive trust may be imposed when a party obtains or holds title under circumstances where equity requires recognition of another’s beneficial interest to prevent wrongful retention of property.
- Constructive-trust relief may be available notwithstanding the statute of frauds and parol-evidence objections when equity treats the titleholder as a trustee due to reliance and wrongful refusal to honor the understanding that enabled acquisition of title.
- Findings supporting a constructive trust must be supported by clear and convincing evidence; appellate review defers to supported trial-level credibility determinations and factual findings.
- Community-property characterization does not automatically preclude equitable remedies affecting property acquired during marriage; courts may structure relief to protect legitimate financial interests (e.g., by recognizing an equitable lien).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a constructive trust awarding Ellis an undivided one-half beneficial interest in real property based on an oral promise and reliance, held that court reorganization did not defeat jurisdiction, and ruled that statute-of-frauds, parol-evidence, and community-property objections did not bar equitable relief as awarded.


King v. Uhlmann, 103 Ariz. 136, 437 P.2d 928 (Ariz. 1968)