## Facts

- After Sarah Wodonos married the plaintiff, her father, Jose Singer, owned income-producing real property in Miami Beach, Florida.
- The plaintiff alleged that Singer conveyed a 25% interest in the property as a gift intended for the use and benefit of Sarah and the plaintiff together.
- The plaintiff further alleged that, despite this intended joint benefit, record title to the conveyed interest was placed solely in Sarah’s name.
- The plaintiff claimed Singer orally declared that Sarah would hold the property for the benefit of both spouses, but no written trust instrument was executed.
- The alleged trust was not supported by any written declaration, and the deed conveying the interest was not included in the court file.
- The plaintiff alleged that Sarah and Singer later refused to recognize any beneficial interest in him or to honor the asserted trust.
- The plaintiff filed an amended bill in equity against Sarah and Singer seeking to have the court declare a trust (including a constructive trust) in his favor in the real property.
- The trial court dismissed the amended bill with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, and the plaintiff appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended bill alleged facts sufficient for a court of equity to declare a resulting trust in favor of the husband where the conveyance was alleged to be a gift and the husband did not allege he paid any consideration.
2. Whether the amended bill alleged facts sufficient to impose a constructive trust based on an alleged oral declaration or understanding concerning beneficial ownership of real property, without specific allegations of fraud or comparable inequitable conduct.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the amended bill of complaint with prejudice.
- The court held the allegations were insufficient to establish a resulting trust because the plaintiff did not allege that he furnished the consideration for the conveyance; the pleading characterized the transfer as a gift.
- The court held the allegations were insufficient to establish a constructive trust because the pleading relied on an unwritten trust arrangement concerning land and did not allege fraud, abuse of confidence, or other circumstances that would justify equitable relief despite the Statute of Frauds.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint seeking to impose a trust in real property must plead specific facts showing a recognized basis for equitable relief; conclusory assertions that property was “intended” for another’s benefit are not enough.
- A purchase-money resulting trust generally requires allegations that the claimant paid all or part of the purchase price (or supplied the consideration) at or before the time title was taken in another’s name; a gratuitous transfer to the titleholder does not satisfy this requirement.
- An express trust in an interest in land generally must be evidenced by a writing to be enforceable; an alleged oral trust concerning real property is ordinarily barred by the Statute of Frauds.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy typically tied to fraud, abuse of a confidential relationship, undue influence, or other wrongful conduct connected to acquiring or keeping title; a later refusal to recognize an asserted oral beneficial interest, standing alone, is not sufficient.
- Equity will not impose a constructive trust merely to enforce an oral arrangement about ownership of land when the pleading does not allege the type of misconduct that allows relief notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds.

## Conclusion

Wodonos v. Wodonos held that the husband’s amended bill failed to state a cause of action for either a resulting trust or a constructive trust because the allegations described a gift placed in the wife’s name without any claim that the husband supplied consideration, and the asserted trust rested on an unwritten understanding about land without pleaded fraud or similar misconduct; the dismissal with prejudice was therefore affirmed.


Wodonos v. Wodonos, 62 So. 2d 78 (1952)