Judge Scott Fairgrieve
Owner sued to recover the subject premises in this holdover proceeding. Respondent tenant failed to file an answer. Petitioner was respondents’ son’s common-law wife, and the mother of their two grandchildren. Respondents sought to purchase the subject premises, but sought to use petitioner’s credit, and she agreed. The residence was purchased in petitioner’s name, while respondents alleged petitioner verbally agreed to transfer title into their name. Respondents have continuously lived in the premises since 2007 until present, while petitioner never has. Respondents paid the $2,700 mortgage, constituting rental payments, for the first two months, and then stopped. Respondents claimed they were entitled to a constructive trust as petitioner failed to transfer title to them. The court disagreed finding petitioner was entitled to a judgment of possession as evidence showed the parties entered into a rental agreement for payment of the mortgage by respondents which they breached. It stated the facts demonstrated petitioner was not unjustly enriched as respondents breached their agreement, thus were not entitled to relief based on the doctrine of constructive trust. Hence, petitioner was entitled to a judgment of possession with a stay of the warrant of eviction until Dec. 31, 2013.
