Opinion ID: 1750963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Pamela's Cross-claims of Conversion and Unjust Enrichment Against Metro Bank

Text: Pamela argues that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Metro Bank on Pamela's conversion claim. A common law action for conversion will lie for (1) a wrongful taking, (2) an illegal assumption of ownership, (3) an illegal use or misuse, or (4) a wrongful detention. Strickland v. Kafko Mfg., Inc., 512 So.2d 714, 716 (Ala.1987). Pamela also argues that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment on her claim that a constructive trust should have been imposed to prevent unjust enrichment by Metro Bank. A constructive trust is a creation of equity that operates to prevent unjust enrichment. Rau v. Rau, 429 So.2d 593 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). A constructive trust may be imposed when property has either been acquired by fraud, or where, in the absence of fraud, it would be inequitable to allow the property to be retained by the person who holds it. Rau.  Holley v. Holley, 660 So.2d 608, 610 (Ala. Civ.App.1995). In addition to the knowledge we impute to Metro Bank through Carden, Pamela testified that she had a telephone conversation with another bank employee, Joe Allinder, who informed her, she says, that she needed to sign release forms so that Metro Bank could receive the proceeds from the insurance policy. Even though Pamela refused to sign the release forms, Metro Bank accepted the proceeds of Bret's insurance policy pursuant to Bret's assignment of the policy to it. For the same reason the trial court erred in finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the proper owner of the insurance proceeds, we hold that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Metro Bank on Pamela's conversion and unjust-enrichment claims.