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

appealtrialmotiontrustconstructive trust
motiontrustappellantconstructive trust

Related Cases

Toshiba America Electronic Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.App.4th 762, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,661, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,401
View Case »
Wade v. United States, 173 A.3d 87
View Case »
Macy’s Inc. v. J.C. Penny Corp., Inc., 107 A.D.3d 616, 968 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04891
View Case »
Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 392 S.E.2d 735
View Case »
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Galasso, 389 N.J.Super. 281, 913 A.2d 78
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Solomon R., 123 A.D.3d 934, 999 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08849

Facts

Usher P. appealed from an order denying his motion to remove Michael R. as guardian of Solomon R. and to impose a constructive trust on funds transferred to Solomon R.'s family. The motion was based on allegations of misconduct by the guardian and concerns regarding the adequacy of care provided to Solomon R. The court had previously ordered the transfer of funds to Solomon R.'s family in 2005.

The appellant failed to offer sufficient evidence to satisfy the elements generally needed for the imposition of a constructive trust, or to demonstrate that a constructive trust is necessary in this case to satisfy the demands of justice.

Issue

Did the Supreme Court err in denying Usher P.'s motion to remove Michael R. as guardian and to impose a constructive trust on certain funds?

Did the Supreme Court err in denying Usher P.'s motion to remove Michael R. as guardian and to impose a constructive trust on certain funds?

Rule

The court applied the standard for removing a guardian under Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35, which requires a showing of misconduct or deficiencies that prejudice the ward's interests, and the standard for imposing a constructive trust, which necessitates sufficient evidence to satisfy its elements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by, in effect, denying that branch of the appellant's motion which was to remove Michael R. as guardian of the person and property of Solomon R. pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35.

Analysis

The court found that Usher P.'s allegations against the guardian were either conclusory or related to minor deficiencies that did not affect Solomon R.'s interests. Additionally, the court determined that Usher P. failed to provide adequate evidence to support the imposition of a constructive trust, as he did not meet the necessary legal standards.

The appellant's allegations of misconduct are either conclusory or concern minor deficiencies in the guardian's performance that have not prejudiced Solomon R.'s interests and do not warrant his removal as guardian.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the order denying Usher P.'s motion, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion and that the claims for a constructive trust were unsupported.

The Supreme Court also, in effect, properly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was to impose a constructive trust on certain funds of Solomon R. that were transferred to Solomon R.'s family pursuant to an order of the same court dated September 29, 2005.

Who won?

Michael R. prevailed in the case because the court found that there was insufficient evidence to justify the removal of the guardian or the imposition of a constructive trust.

You must be