Court Opinion

ID: 9656970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:09:41.610554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:39.322725
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
It is clear that David has no claim against his mother’s estate based on a warranty of title made by his father under SDCL 43-25-14.
The majority points out that fraud “must exist at the inception of the title to the property” to impose a constructive trust. The majority then states: “The circuit court concluded that there had been no showing ... of any fraud or unconscionable conduct warranting the imposition of a trust. We agree.” Despite this unequivocal conclusion, the majority then proceeds to tackle the “tracing” problem, which obviously need not be reached. By discussing this tracing problem when it is not necessary, the majority incorrectly implies that an implied trust is created whenever one can trace the funds. I cannot agree that that is a correct statement of the law.
This case is more appropriately controlled by SDCL 55-1-6 through 55-1-11 and Matter of Estate of Jahnel, 428 N.W.2d 528 (S.D.1988). If an implied trust could not be declared in Jahnel, certainly none can be declared here. Because the facts here are not sufficient even under SDCL 55-1-11, we should affirm the trial court without reaching the “tracing” problem.