## Facts

- Charles A. Williams died intestate in February 1953, leaving a widow, Annie M. Williams, and a son, Charlie Frank Williams.
- In December 1953, Annie executed a will devising parcels of real estate (drawn from assets associated with Charles’s estate) to various specific devisees; Charlie was not included as a devisee.
- In January 1954, Charlie executed and delivered a deed conveying to Annie all of his right, title, and interest in the estate of his deceased father, whether real or personal.
- Charlie alleged that, before executing the deed, he and Annie made an oral agreement that he would convey his inheritance interest to her in exchange for her promise that, at her death, she would leave him the entire property derived from Charles’s estate that she had not disposed of during her lifetime (including an alleged promise to die intestate).
- Annie died in June 1955 leaving the 1953 will, which distributed property to other beneficiaries.
- Charlie filed an equity action seeking specific performance of the alleged oral agreement, or alternatively a constructive trust on assets in Annie’s estate traceable to the property he conveyed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficiently clear and convincing to establish and specifically enforce an alleged oral contract to devise property.
2. Whether, notwithstanding insufficient proof of an enforceable oral contract, equity required imposition of a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment arising from a no-consideration transfer within a confidential relationship.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the chancellor’s final decree dismissing the complaint.
- The court agreed that the proof was insufficient to specifically enforce the alleged oral agreement to devise property.
- The court held that equity required relief through a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment resulting from Charlie’s conveyance to Annie without consideration in the context of their confidential relationship.
- The case was remanded for entry of an appropriate decree consistent with recognizing and enforcing the constructive trust on property traceable to the father’s estate.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance of a parol contract to make a will or devise property requires clear and convincing proof; failure to meet that standard defeats contract enforcement.
- A constructive trust may be imposed where property is transferred under a confidential relationship, without adequate consideration, and retention of the property (or its proceeds) would unjustly enrich the transferee or successors.
- Equity may grant restitutionary relief by constructive trust even when an alleged express contract fails for lack of proof, if the circumstances make it inequitable for the recipient to retain the benefit.

## Conclusion

The court declined to enforce the alleged oral promise to devise property due to insufficient clear and convincing proof, but reversed the dismissal because the mother–son confidential relationship and the uncompensated transfer supported a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment of the will beneficiaries from property traceable to the son’s conveyed inheritance interest.


Williams v. Grogan, 100 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1958)