Background
Gina Rossi and Michael Peart were engaged in 2015. Rossi alleged she contributed funds toward the purchase of property titled solely in Peart’s name. After the engagement ended, Rossi filed a complaint seeking a resulting trust. Peart moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9), relying on a “gift letter” Rossi had signed in connection with the mortgage application.
Holding
The First District reversed, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the parties’ intent. The gift letter—signed to satisfy a mortgage lender’s requirements—did not conclusively establish that Rossi’s contributions were an irrevocable gift rather than her share of a joint investment.
Key Takeaways
- A resulting trust arises when one party provides purchase money for property titled in another’s name, creating a presumption that the titleholder holds the property in trust for the contributor.
- A “gift letter” signed for mortgage qualification purposes does not automatically defeat a resulting trust claim where other evidence suggests the parties intended a shared investment.
- On a section 2-619 motion, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.
Why It Matters
This case clarifies that form documents executed to satisfy lender requirements may not reflect the true agreement between parties, and courts should not dismiss resulting trust claims at the pleading stage where genuine factual disputes exist about the contributor’s intent.