If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

JOANNE F. FLYNN,

Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellant,

UNPUBLISHED

April 9, 2019

v No. 342553

Shiawassee Circuit Court

THOMAS R. FLYNN, LC No. 2016-008347-CH

Defendant/CounterplaintiffAppellee.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and CAVANAGH and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action for partition of real property, plaintiff/counterdefendant appeals as of right 

the trial court’s judgment granting an equitable partition of 100% to defendant/counterplaintiff. 

We affirm.

This case arises from a property dispute between family members who were cotenants of 

real property. To save the family farm from foreclosure, defendant offered to purchase the 

property from his parents, but he was unable to do so without a cosigner. Defendant’s brother, 

William Flynn, was married to plaintiff. Defendant’s brother and plaintiff cosigned the loan and 

the property was deeded to plaintiff and William, as husband and wife, and defendant, as tenants 

in common. It is undisputed that defendant alone paid 100% of the mortgage loan, 100% of the 

property taxes, and 100% of the property insurance, and that he claimed all of the income from 

the family farm on his tax returns. Defendant also performed the maintenance on the family 

farm and paid for any supplies, equipment, and outside repairs. Plaintiff acknowledged that she 

never did any work on or put any money into the family farm. In 2016, following William’s 

death, plaintiff and defendant filed competing claims seeking partition of the property. 

Following a two-day trial, the trial court concluded that a constructive trust was created by the 

parties’ loan transaction and that defendant was solely entitled to 100% interest in the family 

farm. 
-2-

An action to partition land is equitable in nature. MCL 600.3301. This Court reviews 

equitable actions de novo and reviews the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error. In re 

Temple Marital Trust, 278 Mich App 122, 142; 748 NW2d 265 (2008). “In an equitable action, 

a trial court looks at the entire matter and grants or denies relief as dictated by good conscience.” 

In re Moukalled Estate, 269 Mich App 708, 719; 714 NW2d 400 (2006). “Broadly speaking the 

sound discretion of the court is the controlling guide of judicial action in every phase of a suit in 

equity.” Temple, 278 Mich App at 142 (cleaned up).

On appeal, plaintiff argues that a constructive trust may not be imposed upon parties who 

did not contribute to the reasons for imposing a constructive trust, and that the circumstances 

around plaintiff’s acquisition of her one-half interest in the family farm do not necessitate the 

creation of a constructive trust because there was no unjust enrichment as evidenced by fraud, 

misrepresentation, concealment, undue influence, or other similar circumstances. Plaintiff 

further argues that the trial court erred when it declined to award her any interest in the family 

farm. We disagree and affirm for the reasons stated by the trial court in its well-reasoned bench 

opinion. 

Defendant, having prevailed in full, may tax costs under MCR 7.219(F).

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron