Court Opinion

ID: 9586057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:06:47.670707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:19.613131
License: Public Domain

Hines, Justice.
Lathem appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted his petition for the partition of three parcels of land. 1 For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
Taking Lathem’s allegations as true, as is required when reviewing an order on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under *850OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), see Anderson v. Flake, 267 Ga. 498, 501 (2) (480 SE2d 10) (1997), the facts are as follows: The first of the three parcels of land was acquired by Hestley in 1959. In 1974, Lathem began living there with Hestley and, in 1990, Lathem enlarged the home on this property, spending over $100,000 to do so. Hestley represented that Lathem would acquire a one-half interest in the property by making this expenditure, and Lathem relied on this representation in making the improvements. Lathem thereafter paid half the property taxes on the parcel and made repairs and additional improvements; these expenditures were as an owner, not as a renter. The second parcel of land was purchased by Lathem and Hestley in 1993 as joint tenants. In 1994, timber was cut from this land and the proceeds were placed in the parties’ joint bank account. The third parcel was purchased by Hestley in 1996, with the proceeds from the 1994 timber sale; the remaining timber money went to retire the debt on the jointly held property.
The court granted Hestley’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6). Such a motion should be granted only when the petition “shows with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claim.” Property Pickup v. Morgan, 249 Ga. 239, 240 (290 SE2d 52) (1982). The nonmovant’s pleadings must be construed most favorably to him and all doubt resolved in his favor. Alford v. Public Svc. Comm., 262 Ga. 386, n. 2 (418 SE2d 13) (1992).
The court stated that the petition did not set forth a claim because OCGA § 19-3-3.1 forbids Lathem from gaining any interest in property titled in Hestley’s name based on a claim that the parties were “domestic partners.” Any such alleged status, however, is not the basis for Lathem’s asserted interest. Rather, Lathem claims an interest based on an implied constructive trust.
Although Lathem did not specifically state in his petition that he sought the imposition of an implied trust, he did state that his right to partition was in reliance on Weekes v. Gay, 243 Ga. 784 (256 SE2d 901) (1979),2 a case in which an implied trust was imposed. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the issue is not whether the petition pled a claim in an ideal manner but whether it sufficiently gave Hestley fair notice of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved. See Dillingham v. Doctors Clinic, P.A., 236 Ga. 302, 303 (223 SE2d 625) (1976); Christner v. Eason, 146 Ga. App. 139, 140 (245 SE2d 489) (1978).
*851A constructive trust is one form of implied trust, and is defined by OCGA § 53-12-93 as “a trust implied whenever the circumstances are such that the person holding legal title to property, either from fraud or otherwise, cannot enjoy the beneficial interest in the property without violating some established principle of equity.” See also Edwards v. Edwards, 267 Ga. 780, 781 (2) (482 SE2d 701) (1997). When, as Lathem alleges occurred here, a party is induced to make valuable improvements on real property, a constructive trust may be imposed. See Eason v. Farmer, 261 Ga. 675, 676-677 (2) (409 SE2d 509) (1991); Middlebrooks v. Lonas, 246 Ga. 720, 721 (2) (272 SE2d 687) (1980). The facts alleged, the citation to Weekes v. Gay, and the relief requested satisfied the requirements that Lathem give Hestley fair notice of the claim and an indication of the type of litigation involved, and set forth a claim for the imposition of a constructive trust on the three parcels of property, and a partition of these parcels.
Nor was the trial court correct in ruling that Lathem’s claims based on Hestley’s representations were barred by the statute of frauds. See OCGA § 13-5-30 (4). An action attempting to establish an interest in land through an implied trust is not barred by the statute of frauds. Watkins v. Watkins, 256 Ga. 58, 59 (1) (344 SE2d 220) (1986).
The trial court also ruled that Lathem had certain rights in the parcel of land which the parties purchased jointly, but that these rights did not provide him a claim upon which relief could be granted because to exercise them he must first establish the necessity of equitable partition over statutory partition. However, it is not a proper ground for dismissal that the petition does not disclose that Lathem’s remedy of statutory partition is inadequate. See Burnham v. Lynn, 235 Ga. 207, 208 (219 SE2d 111) (1975); Sikes v. Sikes, 233 Ga. 97, 98 (209 SE2d 641) (1974). Additionally, Lathem’s amended petition alternatively sought statutory partition under OCGA § 44-6-160, or equitable partition, see OCGA § 44-6-140.3
Inasmuch as Lathem’s petition did not fail to state a cause of action, the trial court erred in dismissing it under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, C. J., Fletcher, P. J., and Carley, J., who dissent.

 The court’s order is dated March 18,1998, and recites that the motion came before the court on March 2, 1998. Lathem filed an amended petition on that date, and although the court’s order is silent as to whether the amended petition was considered, the text of the order makes it clear that the court considered the amendment in addressing the motion to dismiss.

 Lathem requested statutory partition under OCGA § 44-6-160, or “Alternatively in reliance on Weeks v. Gay et al., 243 Ga 784 (sic).. . equitable partition.”

 Lathem also suggested the formation of a joint venture between the parties but the imposition of an implied constructive trust is the basis of Lathem’s claim for statutory or equitable partition.