In Harrison v. Harrison , Jeffrey Harrison had a couple of claims against his brother, Kevin. The first was "breach of contract," his second was for the imposition of a "constructive trust" based on Jeffrey's alleged entitlement to 25% of profits from Global Telecom, Inc., of which Kevin was 48% shareholder.
The brothers supposedly had an oral agreement whereby Jeffrey was to receive 25% of the profits from a designated account, plus 25% of the profits from any other account he brought to the company.
After the Steuben County Supreme Court granted Kevin's request to dismiss the contract-breach claim, and denied Jeffrey's request to impose a constructive trust, both brothers appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which reversed the outcome -- finding for Jeffrey on the breach claim and for Kevin on the constructive-trust theory.
Since the AD4 was of the view the purported oral agreement was enforceable, the breach claim was allowed to survive.
But in order to establish an entitlement to a constructive trust, two elements needed to have been shown: a transfer in reliance of a promise, and, an unjust enrichment. Since Kevin didn't satisfy that standard, the AD4 was of the view he couldn't get that relief.
Brotherly love ain't what it's cut out to be, folks.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Harrison v. Harrison