# First National Bank of St. Paul v. Ramier

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · October 30, 1981 · 311 N.W.2d 502

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734844

## Case

- **Full name:** The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL, Appellant, v. George R. RAMIER, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Ronald A. Rohloff, Deceased, Respondent, Betty J. Rohloff, Respondent, Lawrence O. Hoff, Et Al., Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** October 30, 1981
- **Citations:** 311 N.W.2d 502; 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1473
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Yetka
- **Judges:** Wahl, Yetka, Sheran, Otis
- **Cited by:** 101 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734844

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that constructive trust was inappropriate when a bank did not require security for a loan or obtain a potential joint tenant’s signature on the promissory note
- finding of equitable mortgage inappropriate when document conclusively states that it is an unsecured loan

## Opinion text

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
Ronald and Betty Rohloff were residents of Thief River Falls when Ronald Rohloff’s employment required them to move to the metropolitan area. Mr. Rohloff received a short-term $50,000 “swing loan” from appellant to facilitate the purchase of a home in Hennepin County. Mr. Rohloff expected to repay the loan from the proceeds of the eventual sale of their home in Thief River Falls, and the loan allowed them to purchase a new home before the old one was sold.
Mr. Rohloff died before the note became due. Betty Rohloff was not a party to the loan, but its proceeds were used for purchase of the new home in joint tenancy. Although the Rohloffs had acquired some wealth during their marriage, there are insufficient probate assets in Mr. Rohloff’s estate to pay the debt, and Mrs. Rohloff has refused to pay the debt because she did not sign the loan agreement. Appellant sought to have the district court impose a constructive trust on the property for its benefit, but the court refused, finding that, because there was no evidence of improper conduct on the part of Betty Rohloff, a constructive trust was not an available remedy.
Improper conduct is not a prerequisite for the imposition of a constructive trust in Minnesota. A constructive trust is an appropriate remedy whenever the court finds that unjust enrichment would otherwise result. See, e. g., Thompson v. Nesheim, 280 Minn. 407, 415 , 159 N.W.2d 910, 917 (1968). Unjust enrichment occurs whenever one person retains the property of another in any unconscientious manner. See Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 482 , 25 N.W.2d 225, 229 (1946); Henderson v. Murray, 108 Minn. 76, 79 , 121 N.W. 214, 216 (1909). As Justice Mitchell observed nearly a century ago:
An action for money had and received can be maintained whenever one man has received or obtained the possession of the money of another, which he ought in equity and good conscience to pay over. This proposition is elementary. There need be no privity between the parties, or any promise to pay, other than that which results or is implied from one man’s having another’s money, which he has no right conscientiously to retain.
Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238, 239 , 13 N.W. 42, 42 (1882).
In this case, I would hold that Betty Rohloff’s retention of the proceeds of the bank loan is unconscionable and warrants the imposition of a constructive trust. By keeping the proceeds of the loan, she re *505 ceives a windfall that constitutes a clear case of unjust enrichment. To hold otherwise in this case will inhibit the availability of loans that enable families to purchase a new home whenever economic conditions require them to relocate before they have had the opportunity to sell the previous home.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734844. Public record. Not legal advice.