-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

LORI L. MALE,

Plaintiff/Counter DefendantAppellee, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016

v No. 324000 Alpena Circuit Court KEVIN JAMES RUSSELL, LC No. 13-005423-CH

Defendant/Counter PlaintiffAppellant.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and G ADOLA and O’B RIEN , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals the opinion a nd order of the circuit court t hat established a constructive trust over two par cels of real property ostensibly held by plaintiff and defendant. We affirm.

Plaintiff purchased the two properties in issue. A trailer si ts on one parcel and a cabin sits on the other. Plaintiff met defendant when defendant was completing some repairs for her family. He also worked for plai ntiff in repairing her trailer. At one point, the parties began a romantic relationship and moved into the trailer together. Pla intiff testified below that she paid defendant for all his construction work. Defendant maintained that the parties entered an agreement granting defendant an interest in both properties in consideration for unpaid work he performed. Plaintiff acknowledge d that she transferred the pro perties by quitclaim deed from her name into both parties’ names, but stated this was only to allo w defendant to transfer the property to her nieces in the event she predeceased defendant. Plaintiff and defendant no longer are involved in a relationship.

After conducting a bench trial, the court found plaintiff’s te stimony credible and found that a constructive trust existed between the parties as to the real estate. Defendant claims an appeal and argues that the trial court did not have sufficient factual basis for this finding. We review the equitable decisions of lower courts de novo, but wil l overturn any underlying factual findings only upon a finding of clear error. In re Filibeck Estate , 305 Mich App 550, 553; 853 NW2d 448 (2014). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, althoug h there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with a def inite and firm conviction that a-2- mistake has been committed.” Christiansen v Gerrish Twp , 239 Mich App 380, 387; 608 NW2d 83 (2000) (quotation omitted).

An action for partition of land is equitable in nature, MCL 60 0.3301, and “a constructive trust is an equitable remedy,” In re Filibeck Estate , 305 Mich App at 552. Constructive trusts arise by operation of law. Kent v Klein , 352 Mich 652, 656; 91 NW2d 11 (1958). Constructive trusts may be imposed to pr event unjust enrichment. In re Filibeck Estate , 305 Mich App at 553. “‘When property has been acquired in such circumstances that th e holder of the legal title may not, in good conscience, retain th e beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee.’” Kent
, 352 Mich at 656, quoting Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co , 225 NY 380, 386; 122 NE 378 (1919) (C ARDOZO , J.). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, fraud or deceit are no t necessary to impose a constructive trust wher e the property is unconscionabl y withheld. Id. at 657.

Plaintiff testified that defendant restricted her access to bo th properties. Defendant admitted restricting plaintiff’s access to the trailer property . Plaintiff clearly testified that she effected the transfer of prope rty with the unde rstanding that d efendant would pass the property to her nieces if she predeceased him. She further testified that she believed the situation was temporary and was not aware that it could not be changed. The trial court accepted her testimony on these points and rejected defendant’s testimony th at the property was transferred as compensation for work he completed. Defendant challenges the s ufficiency of this evidence, but it is not for this Court to judge the credibility of the witnes ses. Brandt v Brandt , 250 Mich App 68, 74; 645 NW2d 327 (2002). Plaintiff’s testimony supports th e imposition of a constructive
trust.

Although defendant attempts to raise a laches defense, he does not cite any law supporting his argument. Nor has he shown how the doctrine of laches applies in this circumstance, how or why plainti ff delayed in bringing her clai ms, or how he has been prejudiced by any such delay. Defendant may not merely announc e his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims

. Mudge v Macomb Co , 458 Mich 87, 105; 580 NW2d 845 (1998).

Plaintiff’s testimony clearly showed that she believed that pl acing defendant’s name on the deeds was to be temporary and for the benefit of her nieces . Therefore, any interest defendant had in the land was as a mere trustee for plaintiff’s nieces. Kent , 352 Mich at 656. He had neither independent right of possession nor any claim on re nt generated by the properties.

Affirmed.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause /s/ Michael F. Gadola /s/ Colleen A. O'Brien