King v. Uhlmann
Arizona Supreme Court
437 P.2d 928 (1968)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
George Ellis (plaintiff) located a 40-acre parcel of land (the land) worth at least $40,000 for Roy King (plaintiff), and King became the record owner of the land. Ellis and King agreed that if Ellis found another buyer, King would sell the land to the buyer and share profits with Ellis. Ellis then found Ernest Uhlmann (defendant), and the three men negotiated a transaction: King would sign a written contract to sell Ernest the land for $20,000, and Ernest orally promised to convey to Ellis a one-half interest in the land. Ernest was married to Billie Uhlmann, who was not involved in the transaction. Ernest received a deed to the land from King but repudiated any obligation to convey property to Ellis. Ellis and King sued Ernest to establish a constructive trust based on Ernest’s breach of an oral promise to convey. Ernest filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the land was the Uhlmanns’ community property and could not be conveyed without Billie, making Billie an indispensable party to the suit. Under Arizona law, both spouses were required to consent to conveyances of community real estate. The trial court ruled against Ernest and granted a judgment imposing a constructive trust in Ellis’s favor as to one-half of the land. Ernest appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McFarland, C.J.)
Dissent (Bernstein, 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. 46,400 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.
