299 N.Y. 22, 85 N.E.2d 168
Mary Sheldon Lyon executed a will in 1943 that left almost her entire estate to defendant Father Divine, leader of a religious cult, two corporate defendants connected with the cult, and individual defendant Patience Budd, an active follower of Father Divine.1 Plaintiffs, first cousins of the decedent but not her distributees, allege that after making this will the decedent on several occasions expressed a desire and determination to revoke it and to execute a new will under which plaintiffs would receive a substantial portion of the estate.2
Shortly prior to her death the decedent had attorneys draft a new will naming plaintiffs as legatees for legacies totaling approximately $350,000.3 By means of false representations, undue influence, and physical force, defendants prevented the decedent from executing that new will.4
Shortly before her death in October 1946, the decedent again expressed her determination to execute the proposed new will favoring plaintiffs, whereupon defendants conspired to kill and did kill her by means of a surgical operation performed by a doctor engaged without the consent or knowledge of any relatives.5 After the decedent’s death the 1943 will was contested by distributees and probated under a compromise agreement to which plaintiffs were not parties and under which the defendants received a large sum from the estate.6
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking a declaration that defendants hold the property as constructive trustees for plaintiffs.7 The complaint was dismissed for insufficiency on a motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.8 The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and the Court of Appeals took the case for review.9
Whether the amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiffs to a declaration imposing a constructive trust on property received by the defendants under the probated will?10
Where a legatee under a will already executed prevents the testator by fraud, duress or undue influence from revoking the will and executing a new will in favor of another, so that the testator dies leaving the original will in force, the legatee holds the property thus acquired upon a constructive trust for the intended legatee.11
Yes. Defendants acquired the estate under the 1943 will after using false representations, undue influence, physical force, and murder to prevent Mary Sheldon Lyon from executing the new will that named plaintiffs as legatees for approximately $350,000.12 These facts match the rule that equity imposes a constructive trust on the property in such circumstances.13 The trust serves as the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression whenever necessary to satisfy the demands of justice, and no other procedure achieves complete justice here.14
The amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts entitling plaintiffs to the requested declaration.15
Whether the 1845 decision in Hutchins v. Hutchins bars maintenance of this suit?16
Hutchins v. Hutchins was a suit at law dismissed because it sought damages for the loss of a mere expectancy under a revoked will. That holding does not bar an equity action seeking a constructive trust. Equity employs a different standard that permits relief for frustrated testamentary intentions through the constructive trust device.17
No. The present suit seeks a declaration of constructive trust in equity rather than damages at law as in Hutchins v. Hutchins.18 Plaintiffs target property defendants received under the probated 1943 will after wrongful prevention of the new will.19 The constructive trust operates on the gift after it reaches the legatee and is not limited by the requirement of an invaded common-law right, so the 1845 decision supplies no bar.20
The decision in Hutchins v. Hutchins does not bar maintenance of this suit.21
Whether the Decedent Estate Law, the Statute of Frauds, or the probate of the 1943 will prevents recovery on the facts alleged in the complaint?22
Neither the Decedent Estate Law, the Statute of Frauds, nor the probate of an existing will prevents recovery in a constructive trust action, because the suit does not seek to probate a new will, revoke the existing will, or enforce any promise by the decedent or defendants, but instead imposes a trust on property already received by the defendants as a result of their own fraud.23
No. The 1943 will was probated under a compromise after contest by distributees, yet plaintiffs do not contest the probate or seek to establish the prevented will.24 The complaint reaches the property passing under the probated will through a constructive trust arising from defendants' false representations, undue influence, physical force, and murder.25 The Statute of Frauds is inapplicable because no agreement or promise is enforced, and the Decedent Estate Law is satisfied because the will retains full effect while equity acts on the gift to prevent unjust enrichment.26
The Decedent Estate Law, the Statute of Frauds, and the probate of the 1943 will do not prevent recovery on the facts alleged in the complaint.27