Opinion ID: 1926862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Finding as to constructive trust

Text: Finally, we are brought to the holding of the trial court that the property diverted to accounts in her own name during her marriage were in violation of the agency relationship defendant, Grace Fritzinger, bore to her deceased husband and that a constructive trust should be imposed upon same. In 22 Michigan Law and Practice, Trusts, § 53, p 570, the law is summed up as follows: A confidential or fiduciary relationship ordinarily exists between principal and agent, within the meaning of the rule as to the raising of a constructive trust in the case of a breach of such relationship. Accordingly, where a person occupies a fiduciary relationship as agent for another, and thereby gains something for himself which in equity and good conscience he should not be permitted to keep, equity will raise a constructive trust and compel him to turn it over to the person equitably entitled to it, or to otherwise execute the trust as the court may direct. Citing, Burton v. Burton, 332 Mich 326; Mackey v. Baker, 327 Mich 57; Stephenson v. Golden, 279 Mich 493 and 710; Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich 45; and Moor v. Mandlebaum, 8 Mich 433. Although the burden of proof is on the person seeking to establish a constructive trust, a preponderance of proof is all that is necessary to establish it. The evidence shows conclusively that the elder MacKenzie undertook to provide handsomely for his wife, Grace, by transferring large amounts of property (estimated: $418,000) from his sole name to their joint ownership. The testimony of Grace Fritzinger about the origin of her separate purchases is much less than satisfactory, as the trial court notes vigorously. The trial court said: Her own testimony was that Mr. MacKenzie gave her no money to put in her own account. We cannot say that defendant Grace Fritzinger rebutted the presumption of invalidity arising out of the fiduciary relationship. On the contrary, the proofs preponderate in the other direction. We conclude therefore that the decree should be affirmed. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant.