299 N.Y. 22, 85 N.E.2d 168 (N.Y. 1949) (New York Court of Appeals)
Latham v. Father Divine is a foundational New York Court of Appeals decision at the intersection of Trusts & Estates and Equity.
May a court of equity impose a constructive trust on property received under a probated will when the beneficiaries allegedly prevented the testatrix—by fraud, duress, undue influence, or other wrongful acts—from executing a new will or revoking the existing one that would have benefited the plaintiffs?
Equity will not permit a person to profit from his own wrong. Where a beneficiary under a will, by fraud, duress, undue influence, or other wrongful conduct, prevents the testator from executing or revoking a testamentary instrument so as to alter the disposition of property, a court of equity may impose a constructive trust on the property received by the wrongdoer (and those taking with notice or without bona fide purchaser protection) for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries. This equitable relief does not probate an unexecuted or invalid will, nor does it contravene the Statute of Wills; it instead prevents unjust enrichment by impressing a trust on property obtained by wrongdoing. The plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both the decedent's definite testamentary intent and the causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the decedent's failure to effectuate that intent.
Yes. The complaint stated a cognizable equitable cause of action to impose a constructive trust on property received under the probated will where defendants allegedly prevented the testatrix, through wrongful conduct, from executing a new will or revoking the old one. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and allowed the action to proceed.
Latham v. Father Divine is a staple of Trusts & Estates and Remedies courses because it demonstrates how equity intervenes when formal will requirements collide with wrongdoing. It is frequently taught alongside Riggs v. Palmer to illustrate the no-profit-from-wrong principle and to show that constructive trusts can realign property rights with thwarted donative intent without undermining the Statute of Wills. The case also frames the modern debate over whether to recognize a separate tort of intentional interference with inheritance expectancy; New York prefers constructive trust as the principal vehicle for relief when probate remedies are inadequate. For students, Latham highlights the evidentiary demands (clear and convincing proof) and the remedial design (restitution, tracing, limits) that define equitable interventions in succession disputes.