Opinion ID: 991632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 151, 155 (Md. 1972) (citation omitted).

Text: 6 374 F.2d 381 (4th Cir. 1967). 7 Id. at 383-84 (applying statement of law in Carter v. Abramo, 93 A.2d 546, 548 (Md. 1953)). 3 parties. This court imposed a constructive trust against the widow for the cash surrender value of one of the policies. 8 The Marinhos argue that a constructive trust should be imposed against Orix because Orix was unjustly enriched as the result of the initial error between Pito's and the Marinhos concerning the ownership of the Gradall. Under the Marinhos' novel theory, the fact that Orix was unaware of the Gradall when it entered into the financing agreement makes it an inequitable holder of the property. Even if Orix did not know that Pito's owned a Gradall, however, the security interest was in all of the company's named or unnamed assets. Orix's security interest validly attached to the Gradall as a result of the title held by Pito's. The Marinhos simply fail to establish how Orix was unjustly enriched under these circumstances. An alternative theory, posed and rejected by the district court, is that a constructive trust was created between Pito's and the Marinhos because the Marinhos mistakenly neglected to transfer title in the Gradall from the name of the company to their own individual names. In contrast to Maryland National Bank, however, the Marinhos seek to impose a constructive trust against their own closely-held corporation. The Marinhos are in the untenable position of claiming that Antonio Marinho, as president of Pito's, acted inequitably against his wife and himself. The officers of a closely-held corporation have an obligation to maintain a clear distinction between their personal finances and the finances of the corporation.9 The Marinhos failed to do so and now hope to escape the consequences of their mistake by abrogating Orix's valid security interest. Even if our equitable powers did extend to the righting of every wrong, the Marinhos have not established that a wrong took place. For the foregoing reasons we decline to impose a constructive trust concerning the property in question. The ruling of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ 8 Id. at 386. 9 See, e.g., DeWitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., 540 F.2d 681, 687-89 (4th Cir. 1976) (piercing the corporate veil). 4