## Facts

- In 2003, Peggy Patterson and her husband, Milburn Patterson, purchased a residence and took title in their names.
- Shane Patterson, Milburn’s adult son from a prior marriage, began living in the house after Peggy and Milburn bought it.
- Shane did not provide the down payment, did not attend the closing, and did not sign a note, deed of trust, or other written agreement obligating him to pay the purchase price.
- Shane claimed that, before the purchase, Peggy and Milburn made an oral agreement to convey the home to him later if he paid the mortgage and other expenses connected with the property.
- While living in the home, Shane made some mortgage and other property-related payments and asserted he also paid expenses associated with maintaining the home.
- Shane testified that he made improvements to the property and valued those improvements at approximately $37,000.
- After Milburn died in 2015, Peggy demanded that Shane vacate the property; when he refused, she filed suit seeking possession and Shane’s removal.
- Shane counterclaimed, seeking recognition of an ownership interest through a resulting trust (or similar implied-trust theory) and, alternatively, money damages based on unjust enrichment for the value of the improvements.
- The trial court denied Shane’s request for a resulting trust, awarded Peggy possession, and ordered Peggy to pay Shane $37,000 for unjust enrichment.
- Both parties appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Shane could obtain a purchase-money resulting trust in the property when he did not furnish consideration for the purchase at the time title was acquired, despite his allegations of an oral pre-purchase agreement and later payments.
2. Whether the trial court properly awarded Shane $37,000 in restitution for unjust enrichment based on improvements he claimed to have made to the property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Shane’s claim for a purchase-money resulting trust.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of possession to Peggy.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the $37,000 unjust-enrichment award to Shane for improvements to the property.

## Legal Principles

- A purchase-money resulting trust, if it arises at all, arises at the time the property is purchased and title is taken, based on who provided the consideration (or became legally bound to provide it) for the purchase.
- A claimant cannot establish a purchase-money resulting trust by showing only post-purchase conduct, such as later mortgage payments, later reimbursements, or later improvements, when the claimant did not supply purchase funds or assume a purchase-money obligation at closing.
- Allegations of an oral promise to convey property in the future do not substitute for the requirement that the claimant furnish purchase money (or be obligated for it) when title is acquired for purposes of a purchase-money resulting trust.
- Unjust enrichment may provide restitution when one party confers a benefit on another, the other party accepts or is aware of the benefit, and it would be inequitable for the recipient to retain the benefit without compensation.
- In a property dispute where ownership is not transferred, restitution can still be awarded for improvements that materially benefit the titleholder and are retained by the titleholder.

## Conclusion

Patterson v. Patterson holds that Shane’s alleged oral arrangement and later payments did not create a purchase-money resulting trust because he did not provide purchase consideration when Peggy and Milburn acquired title, but equity supported restitution where Peggy retained the value of Shane’s claimed improvements, leading to an affirmed award of possession to Peggy and $37,000 to Shane for unjust enrichment.


Patterson v. Patterson, 2017 WL 1433310 (2017)