-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UNPUBLISHED 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: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and GADOLA and O’BRIEN, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals the opinion and order of the circuit court that established a 

constructive trust over two parcels of real property ostensibly held by plaintiff and defendant. 

We affirm. 

 Plaintiff purchased the two properties in issue. A trailer sits 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 plaintiff in repairing her trailer. At one point, the parties began a 

romantic relationship and moved into the trailer together. Plaintiff 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 acknowledged that she transferred the properties by quitclaim deed from her 

name into both parties’ names, but stated this was only to allow 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 testimony 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 will 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, although there is evidence to support 

it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with a definite 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 600.3301, 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 prevent unjust enrichment. In re Filibeck Estate, 305 Mich App at 553. 

“‘When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may 

not, in good conscience, retain the 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) (CARDOZO, J.). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, fraud or deceit are not necessary to 

impose a constructive trust where the property is unconscionably withheld. Id. at 657. 

 Plaintiff testified that defendant restricted her access to both properties. Defendant 

admitted restricting plaintiff’s access to the trailer property. Plaintiff clearly testified that she 

effected the transfer of property with the understanding that defendant 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 that the property was transferred as 

compensation for work he completed. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of this evidence, but 

it is not for this Court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Brandt v Brandt, 250 Mich App 

68, 74; 645 NW2d 327 (2002). Plaintiff’s testimony supports the 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 plaintiff delayed in bringing her claims, or how he has been 

prejudiced by any such delay. Defendant may not merely announce 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 placing 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 rent generated by the properties. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 

/s/ Michael F. Gadola 

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien