Termont Superior Court Filed 09/20/2 Addison Ttnit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Addison Unit Mahady Court Middlebury VT 05753

802-388-7741 www.vermontjudiciary.org

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No. 242-11-19 Ancv

Siclari et al vs. Siclari

DECISION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This property disputeincludes claims of breach of express trust, breach of resulting

trust, breach of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, wrongful possession of property,

trespass

to chattel, and negligencefor damageto personal property. Defendant Stephanie

Siclari moves for summary judgment on all claims exceptthose related to personal

property. Plaintiffs Donald Siclari and Fudosan Kongo-Ji Temple, Inc. ("the Temple'')

cross-move for summary judgment on the constructive trust claim.

Facts

The followingfacts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Defendant purchased

the propertylocated at 149 Purinton Road, Lincoln, Vermont ("the property") on August

17, 2012. She financed the purchase through

raa HUD loan from Union Bank. The

property was purchased

in Defendant's name because she could get more favorable

interest rate than if Plaintiff Donald Siclari had purchased it, and because she could get better interest rate than the Temple, which did not yet have 501(c)(3) status. At the time of the property purchase

in 2012, the Temple was incorporated, but it

had not yetfiled for 501(c)(3) status, and did not obtain such status until 2015. Plaintiffs

assert, and Defendant denies, that Defendant was involved with the Temple

as voting member. Donald Siclari signed

two "gift

letters" shortly before the property purchasein

August 2012. The letters refer to gift payments of $20,000 and $80,000 to be applied to the

Order Page of 242-11-19 Ancv Siclari et al vs. Siclari
Order Page 2 of 6

242-11-19 Ancv Siclari et al vs. Siclari

purchase of the property. The letters refer to Donald Siclari as the “donor” and provide 

the following in pertinent part:

(3) No repayment of the gift is expected or implied in the form 

of cash or by future services of the recipient.

(4) The funds given to the homebuyer were not made available 

to the donor from any person or entity with an interest in the 

sale of that property including the seller, real estate agent or 

broker, builder, loan officer, or any entity associated with them.

Exh. 8. The letters also contain the following warning: “Our signatures above indicate that 

we fully understand that it is a Federal Crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both to 

knowingly make any false statement concerning any of the above facts as applicable under 

the provision of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1012 and 1014.” Id. 

Although Donald Siclari alleges that he and Defendant agreed that Stephanie was to 

transfer the property to the Temple after the purchase, there is no signed, written 

agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant for the transfer of the property to Plaintiffs. 

The transfer did not take place because, among other reasons, the Temple had not yet 

applied to be a 501(c)(3) entity. Plaintiffs allege that the property was to be transferred 

when the Temple was in a position to hold the property and Donald Siclari was ready to 

make the transfer. In 2015 when the Temple attained 501(c)(3) status, Plaintiffs did not 

take steps toward the transfer.

Donald Siclari, a priest and president of the Temple, donated money to the Temple, 

resulting in lower personal taxes for himself. From the time of the purchase of the 

property until October 2020, money that Defendant paid toward property expenditures 

such as the mortgage and taxes was reimbursed to her from the Temple’s account. 

Plaintiffs had full, unlimited use of the property until July 2020, although there was no oral 

or written property rental agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant.

The Temple paid for renovations to the property, including kitchen and bath 

upgrades, religious features, a studio/shed, and landscaping. There was no agreement 
Order Page 3 of 6

242-11-19 Ancv Siclari et al vs. Siclari

between Plaintiffs and Defendant for Defendant to reimburse the Temple for renovations 

to the property. The parties dispute the amount the Temple paid for the renovations as 

well as whether the improvements resulted in an increase in value.

Discussion

To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate 

that there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that it is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. V.R.C.P. 56(a). “When both parties move for summary 

judgment, each is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences when the 

opposing party’s motion is being judged.” In re Beliveau NOV, 2013 VT 41, ¶ 7, 194 Vt. 1 

(quoting City of Burlington v. Fairpoint Commc’ns, Inc., 2009 VT 59, ¶ 5, 186 Vt. 332). The 

parties agree that no material facts are in dispute.

Defendant first argues that based on the undisputed facts, there is no resulting trust 

creating Plaintiffs’ alleged legal interest in the property. It is a principle of equity that when 

one person purchases real property with his own money and takes the deed in the name of 

another, “a trust results, by operation of law, to the person paying the consideration.” 

Gregoire v. Gregoire, 2009 VT 87, ¶ 15, 186 Vt. 322 (quoting Pinney v. Fellows, 15 Vt. 525, 538 

(1843)). The elements of a resulting trust are “the payment of consideration and the 

parties’ intent at the time of the conveyance.” Tokarski v. Gates, 138 Vt. 220, 222. It is 

undisputed that the consideration in question came from Donald Siclari, who also signed 

documentation indicating that the money was a gift with no expected repayment. The 

purpose of the gift letter was to make a representation to the lender that Defendant would 

not owe any repayment of the gift. Defendant argues that the unlawful use of the gift 

letters to induce the HUD loan (with favorable terms for Defendant as borrower), see 18 

U.S.C. § 1012, precludes relief in equity for Donald Siclari. See Shattuck v. Peck, 2013 VT 1, 

¶ 14, 193 Vt. 123 (“[O]ne who seeks relief in equity must come to the court with clean 

hands.”) (quoting Savage v. Walker, 2009 VT 8, ¶ 10, 185 Vt. 603 (mem.)). “The same 

principle applies when the object of the conveyance is not to defraud a private creditor but 
Order Page 4 of 6

242-11-19 Ancv Siclari et al vs. Siclari

to mislead the government.” Id. (citing In re Estate of Bruner, 338 F.3d 1172, 1177 (10th 

Cir.2003)) (“Under the maxim, [h]e who comes into equity must come with clean hands, a 

court ... will not lend its aid ... to one who has been a participant in a transaction the 

purpose of which was to defraud a third person, to defraud creditors, or to defraud the 

government.”). 

However, regardless of whether Donald Siclari acted with unclean hands when he 

executed the gift letters, and even if the Court credited Plaintiffs’ assertion that the parties’ 

plan was always that Defendant would transfer the property to the Temple, there is no 

disputed or undisputed fact that supports a conclusion that the parties’ intent at the time of 

purchase was for Donald Siclari to benefit from a resulting trust. There are also no 

undisputed or disputed facts that the Temple paid the consideration. Therefore, as a 

matter of law, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the resulting trust claim.

Constructive trust is also an equitable remedy:

A court may impose a constructive trust when a party obtains 

some benefit that they cannot, in good conscience, retain. “It is a 

familiar principle of equity that a trust is implied whenever the 

circumstances are such, that the person taking the legal estate, 

whether by fraud or otherwise, cannot enjoy the beneficial 

interest without violating the rules of honesty and fair dealing.” 

Legault [v. Legault], 142 Vt. [525,] 529 . . . [(1983)] (quotations and 

citations omitted). Courts may employ constructive trusts to 

avoid unconscionable results and to prevent unjust enrichment. 

Preston v. Chabot, 138 Vt. 170, 174–75 . . . (1980).

Weed v. Weed, 2008 VT 121, ¶ 17, 185 Vt. 83. Here, again, Defendant argues that Donald 

Siclari acted with unclean hands and is therefore not eligible to seek relief in equity. 

Plaintiffs contend that the Court must examine all the facts in detail to make a 

determination about the circumstances related to unclean hands. However, Plaintiffs do 

not lay out sufficient factual assertions to show that Donald Siclari’s unclean hands remain 

a disputed issue. It is undisputed that he executed the gift letters that attest that he 

expected no repayment or service on the recipient’s part, yet he expected Defendant to 

turn the property over to the Temple. Either the gift letters represent a genuine intention 
Order Page 5 of 6

242-11-19 Ancv Siclari et al vs. Siclari

that Defendant never repay the amount given to her, in which case she does not hold the 

property in constructive trust for Donald Siclari’s benefit, or the gift letters are fraudulent, 

in which case Donald Siclari is also not entitled to benefit from a constructive trust. The 

Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the constructive 

trust claim with regard to Donald Siclari.

Notwithstanding Donald Siclari’s conduct in executing gift letters that represented 

that he expected no repayment for the gifts that he gave to Defendant, when in fact he 

expected her to transfer the property to the Temple, the undisputed facts do not at this 

time support the conclusion that the Temple itself acted with unclean hands. The 

undisputed facts do not support the conclusion that the gift letters, the basis of the finding 

of unclean hands, apply to or originated from the Temple and not merely from Donald 

Siclari personally. The undisputed facts also do not show that Defendant made mortgage 

or other payments toward the property, prior to barring the Temple from use of the 

property, that the Temple did not reimburse to her. When considering Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment on the constructive trust claim as it relates to the Temple, 

and making all reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party, the Court could infer that 

Defendant was aware at the time of purchase that she was expected to turn the property 

over to the Temple, and while she made payments related to the property, the Temple’s 

reimbursement of those payments was based on the unwritten agreement that she 

purportedly had made with the Temple, that the property was not truly hers, but rather, 

was for the Temple’s use and eventual ownership. Based on those inferences, it is possible 

that at trial, the Temple would be able to prove that it would not be equitable for 

Defendant to retain the property outright, without some unjust enrichment. 

Along related lines, the elements of unjust enrichment are “(1) a benefit was 

conferred on defendant; (2) defendant accepted the benefit; and (3) defendant retained the 

benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant not to 

compensate plaintiff for its value.” Reed v. Zurn, 2010 VT 14, ¶ 11, 187 Vt. 613 (quoting 

Center v. Mad River Corp., 151 Vt. 408, 412 (1989). Here, a “gift” of $100,000 toward the 
Order Page 6 of 6

242-11-19 Ancv Siclari et al vs. Siclari

downpayment on a property was given to Defendant. Then, as Defendant made mortgage 

and other payments related to the property, the Temple reimbursed her. There are no 

undisputed facts that would indicate that Defendant made any unreimbursed payments 

related to the property before the date when she excluded Plaintiffs from the property. 

Whether or not the Temple’s asserted hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on 

renovations increased the property value, and even if the $100,000 is deemed solely a gift, 

as represented by the documents that Donald Siclari signed, then a finder of fact could still 

reasonably conclude that it would be inequitable—a windfall—for Defendant to retain the 

property at no other cost to her, since the Temple reimbursed her for all expenses. For this 

reason, the claim of unjust enrichment cannot be decided in Defendant’s favor based on 

the undisputed facts at this juncture. For related reasons, it also remains in dispute whether 

it would be equitable for the Court to impose a constructive trust to the Temple’s benefit.

Order

For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment with regard to Donald Siclari’s claims for resulting trust, constructive trust, and 

unjust enrichment, and the Temple’s claim for resulting trust. The Court denies 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the Temple’s claims for 

constructive trust and unjust enrichment. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgment.

Signed Electronically on September 18, 2024 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_________________________________________

David Barra

Superior Court Judge