Case 29.3
FACTS Stella Jankowski added her niece Genevieve Viarengo as a joint owner on several savings and checking accounts, certificates of deposit, and savings bonds. In executing a will, Jankowski told her attorney John Wabiszczewicz that she wanted her estate divided equally among her ten nieces, nephews, and cousins. She named Viarengo and Richard Golebiewski as coexecutors. Wabiszczewicz was not aware of the jointly held accounts and neither Jankowski nor Viarengo mentioned them. Jankowski died in 2001. Within days, Viarengo emptied Jankowski's safe and removed her financial records. Despite requests from Golebiewski and Wabiszczewicz, Viarengo did not reveal the contents of the safe or the records. Jankowski's estate-jewelry; a home in Waterbury, Connecticut; and the jointly held accounts-totaled about $600,000. The jointly owned assets were valued at about $500,000. Viarengo claimed that those accounts were hers. Diane Garrigus and other relatives filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against Viarengo. The court imposed a constructive trust. Viarengo appealed.
ISSUE Can a court impose a constructive trust in the absence of a con- fidential relationship? DECISION Yes. A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
REASON A constructive trust is imposed against a party who obtains property by fraud or other misconduct. Here, the court found that Viarengo committed fraud in obtaining the assets that she had held jointly with Jankowski and would be unjustly enriched if she were allowed to retain them. Jankowski wanted the assets divided among her ten nieces, nephews, and cousins, and Viarengo did not do that. Viarengo argued that to impose a constructive trust, the court had to find a confidential
relationship between Jankowski and herself, as well as fraud. But "our case law does not support that position." The imposition of a constructive trust requires proof of fraud or other wrongdoing, including abuse of confidential relations. "If fraud is established by clear and convincing evidence, which it was in this case, there is no additional requirement to prove the existence of a confidential relationship."
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Legal Consideration What are the elements of fraud? Which facts in this case support the court's finding of fraud?