Luchansky v. Farmers Fire Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that during post-conveyance period (a) parents paid insurance premiums, and kept the premises insured, in repair and leased; (b) son, the legal title holder, did not purchase separate fire insurance protection, and (c
• noting that agreements of sale “will not merge in a deed of conveyance if the intention of the parties is otherwise or where the stipulations in the contract sought to be enforced are collateral to the functions performed by the deed”
• reversing/remanding grant of motion to dismiss where parents conveyed title to son with oral agreement that they would continue to live in home; parents had insurable interest and could recover when property was damaged by fire
• further noting that litigation “was not an action to enforce the provisions of the agreement” by its parties - who had never disputed it
• reversed/remanded for determination of fire loss with holding that family agreement providing parents’ retention of equitable interest was not subsumed by their transfer of title to son
• further noting that “if any dispute arose between the parents and their son, all requirements for imposing a constructive trust appear to exist so that [son] would be deemed to hold the property as a trustee in favor of his parents”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).