## Facts

- Dr. James Senter, a dentist in poor health, executed a warranty deed conveying his home to his nursing assistant, Anna Louise Furman, for stated consideration of “ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration.”
- Senter claimed he faced a malpractice claim that might have exhausted his assets and alleged he conveyed the property to Furman with an understanding she would reconvey it after the exposure ended.
- Senter alleged fraud and undue influence based on his weakened condition and offered medical testimony describing cognitive decline.
- At the summary-judgment hearing, the parties stipulated that Senter knew and understood what he was doing when he executed the deed.
- Senter testified he signed the deed of his own free will.

## Issues

1. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to fraud, undue influence, or lack of capacity sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether equity may impose a constructive trust based on an alleged oral promise to reconvey when the grantor’s stated purpose in transferring the property was to place it beyond the reach of potential creditors.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed summary judgment for Furman.
- The court held the evidence was undisputed that Senter was competent and not under undue influence when he executed the deed.
- The court held that, even assuming an oral promise to reconvey, equity would not impose a constructive trust because Senter sought relief with unclean hands by transferring the property to hinder potential malpractice creditors.

## Legal Principles

- A constructive trust may be declared under Georgia law when the statutory and equitable grounds are met, but it is discretionary equitable relief.
- A party seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands as to the transaction on which relief is sought.
- Equity will not enforce a trust-like reconveyance arrangement where the transfer was undertaken as part of a plan to frustrate legal obligations to creditors, even if the transferee allegedly promised to return the property.
- Summary judgment is proper where material facts are undisputed and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, including when an equitable claim is barred by the clean-hands doctrine.

## Conclusion

Because Senter stipulated he understood the deed and testified he signed freely, his fraud and undue-influence claims failed as a matter of law; and because his own account showed the conveyance was designed to shield assets from potential creditors, equity refused to impose a constructive trust under the clean-hands doctrine.


Senter v. Furman, 245 Ga. 483, 265 S.E.2d 784 (Ga. 1980)