E. Rogers

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial default judgment after the defendants were noted in default in a dispute arising from a failed property management investment venture.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendants held several properties in trust and requested punitive damages.

The court held that a purchase money resulting trust arose for three properties where the plaintiffs directly advanced funds for the purchase but did not take legal title.

For two additional properties, the court found that the elements of unjust enrichment were satisfied and imposed a constructive trust.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the defendants’ misconduct did not reach the threshold of malicious and high‑handed conduct required for such damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce previous orders requiring the defendants to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs initially abandoned a request for a contempt finding but later sought to resurrect it based on new case law.

The court refused to allow the contempt motion to proceed, finding it unfair to the defendants, and noted that contempt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt regardless.

However, the court found the defendant's answers to undertakings were insufficient 'window dressing' and issued a 'last chance' order compelling proper answers and further attendance for discovery, warning that future non-compliance could result in pleadings being struck.