## Facts

- Maureen Sullivan and James W. Rooney were engaged and lived together for roughly seven years during a thirteen- to fourteen-year relationship.
- Sullivan left her job as a flight attendant to maintain a home for Rooney.
- While living in Medford, they decided to buy a house and selected a Reading, Massachusetts home owned by Rooney’s sister and brother-in-law.
- Both understood the purchase as a joint acquisition and expected the home to belong to both of them.
- Rooney told Sullivan that, to obtain 100% Veterans’ Administration financing, title had to be taken solely in his name; the deed was recorded only to Rooney.
- Rooney paid the mortgage and other carrying costs; Sullivan contributed her earnings and savings to the household and home, including food, supplies, and much of the furniture, and performed extensive household work connected to maintaining the home.
- Rooney repeatedly promised to place the property into joint ownership but never did.
- After Rooney’s transfer to the Washington, D.C. area, Sullivan moved with him at his urging; the Reading home was rented out.
- The relationship ended in 1983; Sullivan could not return to the Reading home because it remained rented, and Rooney did not convey any interest to her despite continued assurances.
- Sullivan sued in 1984 seeking an interest in the Reading property based on reliance and unjust enrichment.

## Issues

1. Whether a constructive trust may be imposed on real property titled solely in one unmarried cohabitant’s name where the parties had a relationship of trust and confidence, an understanding of shared ownership, and the non-titled partner materially relied and contributed.
2. Whether the Statute of Frauds bars relief for an asserted interest in land absent a writing, or whether equitable doctrines (including constructive trust and reliance/part performance) permit relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate and Family Court judgment.
- The court upheld the finding that Rooney breached a fiduciary-like duty arising from a confidential relationship concerning the joint home purchase.
- The court held Rooney retained a one-half interest in the Reading property in constructive trust for Sullivan.
- The court approved the order requiring Rooney to convey title to himself and Sullivan as tenants in common.
- The Statute of Frauds did not bar the equitable remedy on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A constructive trust may be imposed when legal title is obtained or retained through fraud, breach of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, or other circumstances making it inequitable for the titleholder to keep the full beneficial interest.
- Unmarried cohabitants are not treated as spouses for divorce-style property division, but equity may allocate property interests to prevent unjust enrichment in a joint economic undertaking.
- A confidential relationship may be found from long-term cohabitation combined with reliance, sacrifice, and shared expectations about ownership, supporting fiduciary-like obligations regarding property.
- The Statute of Frauds does not categorically preclude equitable relief where substantial reliance and performance connected to the claimed interest make it unjust to deny enforcement; a constructive trust can be used to prevent unjust enrichment despite the absence of a writing.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an equitable award of a one-half interest in a home to an unmarried cohabitant by imposing a constructive trust where the parties expected shared ownership, the claimant made substantial reliance-based contributions, and it would be unjust for the titleholder to retain the entire beneficial interest notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds.


Sullivan v. Rooney, 404 Mass. 160, 533 N.E.2d 1372 (Mass. 1989)