Connection lost
Server error
KENT v. KLEIN Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A mother conveyed land to her daughter, intending it for her incompetent son. The daughter later refused to convey it to the son’s heirs. The court imposed a constructive trust, compelling conveyance.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that a constructive trust can be imposed to prevent unjust enrichment where property is unconscionably withheld, even absent fraud or an explicit promise, particularly within a confidential familial relationship.
KENT v. KLEIN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Mrs. Barbara Klein intended to divide her real estate among five of her six children. Due to her son John’s mental incompetence, she conveyed property intended for him to her daughter, Edith Klein, the defendant. This conveyance was separate from another parcel conveyed to Edith for Edith’s own benefit on the same day. The decision to place John’s intended property in Edith’s name was based on advice from another son, Harold, and a son-in-law, partly because Edith had no creditors. The deed for the property intended for John was recorded but retained by Harold; Edith was not initially aware of the specific arrangement for John’s parcel. After John’s death, Harold informed Edith of the arrangement and requested she convey the land to John’s widow and son (plaintiffs). Edith refused. Plaintiffs sought to impose a constructive trust. The trial court found the mother intended the property to be held for John’s benefit and decreed conveyance to plaintiffs.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in imposing a constructive trust on real property conveyed to the defendant daughter where the evidence established the grantor mother intended the property for her incompetent son, even though the daughter made no express promise to hold the property in trust for him?
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court of Michigan Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the trial court err in imposing a constructive trust on real property conveyed to the defendant daughter where the evidence established the grantor mother intended the property for her incompetent son, even though the daughter made no express promise to hold the property in trust for him?
Conclusion
This case underscores the broad equitable power of courts to impose constructive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea
Legal Rule
A constructive trust is a remedial device imposed by equity, arising by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culp
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the defendant's argument that the statute of frauds barred Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy, not a true trust,