White v. Priester

• Decision Date: 30 November 2010
• Citation: 912 N.Y.S.2d 127,78 A.D.3d 1169
• Parties: Melissa WHITE, etc., respondent, v. Constance PRIESTER, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

912 N.Y.S.2d 127

78 A.D.3d 1169

Melissa WHITE, etc., respondent,

v.Constance PRIESTER, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 30, 2010.

Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Elise A. Yablonski of counsel), for appellant.

Barrett & Winn, Amityville, N.Y. (B. Joseph Barrett of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, ARIEL E. BELEN, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a transfer of real property, impose a constructive trust, and direct an accounting, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 24, 2009, as denied those branches of her motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to impose a constructive trust and direct an accounting.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to impose a constructive trust and direct an accounting are granted.

In 1997, the defendant was appointed guardian of the person and property of her mother Lila George. Following her appointment, the defendant moved into Lila's residence to care for her.More than four years later, the defendant made a motion in the guardianship proceeding for court approval to transfer title to Lila's residence to herself on the ground that the transfer would be beneficial for Medicaid and estate planning purposes. The defendant's unopposed motion was granted by order dated November 13, 2002. On November 15, 2002, the defendant, as Lila's guardian, executed a deed transferring title of the subject premises to herself. Lila died shortly thereafter in December 2002. The plaintiff, who is Lila's great granddaughter, claims that neither she nor any of Lila's distributees were aware that title had been transferred to the defendant until the defendant attempted to sell the premises in early 2008. However, the plaintiff admitted in her affidavit that she and other family members discussed their options concerning Lila's estate at the time of her death, and decided to take no action to enforce any rights they might have undera purported will executed in 1984 so that the defendant could continue to live in the premises as compensation for her services as Lila's guardian.

In February 2008 the plaintiff, as the proposed temporary administrator of Lila's estate, commenced this action alleging that the defendant had made misrepresentations to the court in the guardianship proceeding in order to obtain approval to transfer title to the subject premises. The complaint sought, inter alia, to set aside the deed and any mortgages placed on the premises by the defendant, to impose a constructive trust upon the premises for the benefit of the estate distributees, and to require the defendant to account for any rents she had received. The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety based, inter alia, upon the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to set aside the deed and any mortgages based upon the doctrine of laches, noting that the defendant had given a bank a mortgage in September 2006 to secure a loan of more than $700,000, and that setting aside the deed and that mortgage would severely and substantially impair the rights of the mortgagee. However, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so...