Badami v. Badami

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Badami v. Badami

29 A.D.2d 645, 286 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4940

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 3, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 645 (Badami v. Badami) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Badami v. Badami, 29 A.D.2d 645, 286 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 1,1966, modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) deleting the first five decretal paragraphs, [646]*646which declare plaintiff to be the equitable owner of the real property in question, direct defendant to deed the property to her and set forth implementing and related directions and (2) substituting therefor a provision giving plaintiff an equitable lien on the property for the total of $7,644.25 expended by her. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the remedy of constructive trust is not available when the purpose of taking title in a veteran’s name, upon his oral promise to reeonvey, was to obtain a guaranteed loan under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (U. S. Code, tit. 38, former § 693 et seq.) for one not entitled to its benefits (Towner v. Berg, 5 A D 2d 481; Bunn v. Dwrm, 1 A D 2d 888; see, also, Perkins v. Milton, 329 Mass. 291; Glosser v. Powers, 209 Ga. 149 [specific performance denied]). However, in the interests of justice we are impressing an equitable lien on the property in favor of plaintiff, limited in amount to the money paid by her out of her own funds at the closing and thereafter in reduction of the principal of the mortgage indebtedness and to the extent to which the moneys expended by her for permanent improvements enhanced the value of the premises (Towner v. Berg, 5 A D 2d 481, supra). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 1,1966, modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) deleting the first five decretal paragraphs, [646]*646which declare plaintiff to be the equitable owner of the real property in question, direct defendant to deed the property to her and set forth implementing and related directions and (2) substituting therefor a provision giving plaintiff an equitable lien on the property for the total of $7,644.25 expended by her. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the remedy of constructive trust is not available when the purpose of taking title in a veteran’s name, upon his oral promise to reeonvey, was to obtain a guaranteed loan under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (U. S. Code, tit. 38, former § 693 et seq.) for one not entitled to its benefits (Towner v. Berg, 5 A D 2d 481; Bunn v. Dwrm, 1 A D 2d 888; see, also, Perkins v. Milton, 329 Mass. 291; Glosser v. Powers, 209 Ga. 149 [specific performance denied]). However, in the interests of justice we are impressing an equitable lien on the property in favor of plaintiff, limited in amount to the money paid by her out of her own funds at the closing and thereafter in reduction of the principal of the mortgage indebtedness and to the extent to which the moneys expended by her for permanent improvements enhanced the value of the premises (Towner v. Berg, 5 A D 2d 481, supra). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 645, 286 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/badami-v-badami-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack