Mr. and Mrs. Marini were doing right by their daughter and son-in-law.
Not only did they allow the kids to live with them for the first five years of the marriage but, in 1993, the Marinis offered to buy the young couple a house which would belong to them upon the Marinis' death. All that Vincent and Anna needed to do was pay for the home's real-estate taxes and operating expenses.
Of course, none of this was in writing. But, for some eight years, Ana and Vincent complied with their side of the bargain.
In 2002, things got a bit nasty when Vincent sought to divorce Ana. The Marinis countered with an action in the Nassau County Supreme Court to eject or evict Vincent from the home and the Supreme Court (after reviewing the parties' written submissions) not only granted that request but awarded the Marinis some $3000 per month for Vincent's "use and occupancy" of the home.
Finding that Vincent may have an ownership interest in the property, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed.
Even when there is no written evidence of the arrangement, a person can still have an ownership interest in real estate. That kind of claim is known as a "constructive trust," and requires a claimant to prove the existence of the following elements to a judge's satisfaction:
- a confidential or fiduciary relationship;
- an express or implied promise;
- a transfer made in reliance on that promise; and
- an unjust enrichment.
Although he didn't have a deed (or other writing), the AD2 was of the opinion that Vincent had asserted a viable claim of ownership (as a result of his many years of having paid for property-related expenses and improvements), and that the lower court had erred in granting Marinis summary judgment and ordering Vincent's removal from the home.
So, until there's a formal hearing or trial, Vincent gets to stay. (Pretty awkward, no?)
Anyone remember that 1989 movie, War of the Roses ?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Marini v. Lombardo