Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contractplaintiffstatutetrustdivorceunjust enrichmentconstructive trust
contractbreach of contractplaintiffstatutetrustunjust enrichmentconstructive trust

Related Cases

Simkin v. Blank, 19 N.Y.3d 46, 968 N.E.2d 459, 945 N.Y.S.2d 222, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02413
View Case »
Miller v. Kleppen, 395 Mont. 286, 438 P.3d 806, 2019 MT 83
View Case »
Miller v. Kleppen, 395 Mont. 286, 438 P.3d 806, 2019 MT 83
View Case »
Tovar v. Indiana, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 182749
View Case »
Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University, 227 F.3d 133, 147 Ed. Law Rep. 485, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1028
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brand v. Lipton, 274 A.D.2d 534, 711 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 07191

Facts

Saul Lipton had purchased eight New York Jets season tickets for over 30 years, keeping two for himself and giving the others to friends, including Norman Donnenfeld. In 1995, during a divorce, Lipton transferred the account to Donnenfeld's name. When Lipton and another friend requested the tickets be transferred back in 1997, Donnenfeld refused and sold the tickets to third parties, prompting Lipton to file a lawsuit against him.

For more than 30 years Saul Lipton had purchased eight tickets under one account number. He kept two tickets for himself, and turned the tickets for the same two seats over to each of three friends, I. Lawrence Brand and Norman Donnenfeld being two of them.

Issue

Whether the allegations made by the equitable owners of the season tickets were sufficient to impose a constructive trust and whether the Statute of Frauds barred the breach of contract claims.

Whether the allegations made by the equitable owners of the season tickets were sufficient to impose a constructive trust and whether the Statute of Frauds barred the breach of contract claims.

Rule

The court applied the principles of constructive trust, which require a confidential relationship and the potential for unjust enrichment, and clarified that the Statute of Frauds does not apply if a promise can be performed within one year.

The court applied the principles of constructive trust, which require a confidential relationship and the potential for unjust enrichment, and clarified that the Statute of Frauds does not apply if a promise can be performed within one year.

Analysis

The court found that Lipton and the other plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a confidential relationship with Donnenfeld, which warranted the imposition of a constructive trust. The court noted that Donnenfeld's denial of the allegations created factual issues that could not justify dismissal. Additionally, the court ruled that the promise to reconvey the tickets could have been performed within one year, thus not violating the Statute of Frauds.

The court found that Lipton and the other plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a confidential relationship with Donnenfeld, which warranted the imposition of a constructive trust.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's order, allowing the claims for constructive trust and breach of contract to proceed against Donnenfeld.

The court affirmed the lower court's order, allowing the claims for constructive trust and breach of contract to proceed against Donnenfeld.

Who won?

Saul Lipton prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient grounds for his claims regarding the constructive trust and breach of contract.

Saul Lipton prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient grounds for his claims regarding the constructive trust and breach of contract.

You must be