Ramsay v Garland
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Real property title transfer with an alleged oral promise to reconvey; enforceability under the Statute of Frauds and availability of equitable remedies (constructive trust, unjust enrichment) and declaratory relief under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15.
The Supreme Court, Queens County denied Garland’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all causes of action against her.
On appeal, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract and fraud claims but left intact the constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and RPAPL article 15 declaratory relief claims.
The alleged oral agreement to reconvey real property is unenforceable under General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-703 [requires that conveyances and contracts concerning real property be in writing]. The fraud claim is duplicative of the contract claim because it arises from the same facts and seeks the same damages. Equitable claims for constructive trust and unjust enrichment are not barred by the Statute of Frauds and present fact issues regarding a confidential relationship and potential unjust enrichment. Declaratory relief may be warranted under Real Property Law (RPL) § 320 [recognizes that a deed intended as security for a debt is treated as a mortgage] and may be pursued via Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15 [action to quiet title].
Background
In 2010, facing mortgage difficulties on her Queens home, the plaintiff conveyed title to longtime family friend Veronica Garland, who agreed to obtain a mortgage loan. The plaintiff claims Garland orally promised to reconvey title once the plaintiff’s finances improved. The plaintiff remained in possession, paying the mortgage and utilities to Garland. Around 2012 the plaintiff asserts she was ready to refinance and asked Garland to transfer back, but Garland allegedly stalled. In 2018 Garland announced plans to sell and told the plaintiff to vacate. The plaintiff sued for a constructive trust, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of contract, and declaratory relief under RPAPL article 15 alleging the deed was actually a mortgage.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County denied Garland’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her on all causes of action.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified. It granted summary judgment to Garland dismissing the breach of contract claim as barred by GOL § 5-703 and dismissed the fraud claim as duplicative of the contract claim. It otherwise affirmed, holding that constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims may proceed as equitable remedies not subject to the Statute of Frauds and that the RPAPL article 15 claim for declaratory relief may proceed because the deed could be deemed an equitable mortgage under RPL § 320.
Legal Significance
An oral promise to reconvey real property is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds (GOL § 5-703). Fraud claims that merely restate a contractual promise and seek the same damages are duplicative and subject to dismissal. Equitable remedies—constructive trust and unjust enrichment—remain available to prevent unjust enrichment and are not barred by the Statute of Frauds, particularly where a confidential or fiduciary relationship and reliance are alleged. Courts may declare that a deed absolute in form was intended as security and is therefore a mortgage under RPL § 320, which can be pursued via an RPAPL article 15 quiet title claim.
While oral agreements to reconvey real property are unenforceable, equitable remedies and quiet title relief can still protect parties in trust-based title transfer arrangements that function as security for a debt.