Hicks v. Gilbert
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
762 A.2d 986 (2000)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Thomas Hicks (plaintiff) and Cindy Gilbert (defendant) were living together when they bought real estate as joint tenants in 1989. Two years later, Hicks experienced financial trouble and feared that his creditors would acquire liens against the property. To avoid his creditors, Hicks conveyed his interest in the property to Gilbert and Gilbert’s parents (defendants). According to Hicks, Gilbert and her parents agreed to pay him if they ever sold the property. After conveying his interest, Hicks continued to live in, maintain, and improve the property until 1998, when his relationship with Gilbert ended. Hicks asked Gilbert to reimburse him for his work on the property, and she refused. Instead, Gilbert and her parents sold the property to Gilbert’s brother. Hicks sued Gilbert and her parents, asserting claims including unjust enrichment and constructive trust. The Gilberts moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hicks’s claims were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands because he had transferred the property to avoid his creditors. Hicks admitted that he had transferred the property to avoid his creditors but claimed that he had purged any misconduct by subsequently paying his debts. The trial court, reasoning that Hicks had unclean hands, granted summary judgment. Hicks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sonner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
