The Court held that a common intention constructive trust arose over a half share in property where siblings had a demonstrable plan to convert all their jointly held properties from tenancies in common to joint tenancies for survivorship purposes, but one property was overlooked due to an erroneous duplicate Certificate of Title. The critical question for the unconscionability element was not whether the deceased had actually engaged in unconscionable conduct during his lifetime, but whether it would have been unconscionable for him to deny the common intention had the error come to light — a hypothetical framing sufficient to satisfy the equitable fraud requirement. The Court also required amendment of the settlement agreement to give the deceased's estate enforceable rights to payments promised under the settlement terms, despite the practical unlikelihood of non-payment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.