A New York appeals court on Wednesday upheld a ruling cancelling a 2003 property transfer after a mother, Josephine Catalano, took legal action against her son and daughter-in-law for refusing to return her property in Rockland County. Josephine had transferred ownership to the couple after her son verbally promised to give it back whenever she asked. More than two decades later, the court ruled in her favour, finding that she had relied on her son’s promise when transferring the property.According to the ruling, Josephine Catalano had transferred the property, located in Rockland County, New York, to her son, Carmine D. Catalano Jr., and his wife, Denise Catalano, in 2003. However, she had kept the right to use the property during her lifetime. According to court records, Josephine agreed to transfer ownership because Carmine had verbally assured her that he would return it whenever she wanted.Although the property was legally transferred to her son and daughter-in-law, she maintained that the understanding between them was that she could ask for it back. The promise was not written into the property deed, but she said it was the reason she had agreed to the transfer.The disagreement arose when Josephine eventually asked the couple to return the property. They refused, prompting her to take legal action. She asked the court to cancel the 2003 deed and restore her rights over the property.
Mother takes son and daughter-in-law to court
Josephine approached a court in Rockland County, arguing that her son had failed to honour the understanding on which she had transferred the property.She wanted the court to recognise that the couple should not be allowed to keep ownership after refusing to fulfil the promise that had led her to transfer it in the first place.The court heard the case without a jury, meaning a judge examined the evidence and decided the outcome. On November 21, 2024, the judge ruled in Josephine’s favour. The court found that she had provided strong and convincing evidence showing that the property had been transferred because of her son’s promise.The judge ordered a legal remedy known as a constructive trust which meant the couple could not continue holding the property for their own benefit when the circumstances of the transfer required it to be returned to Josephine.The court also cancelled the original 2003 deed and rejected the claims Carmine and Denise had made against Josephine. However, the couple did not accept the decision and challenged it before a higher court.
Appeals court examines son’s promise
The case then reached the Appellate Division, Second Department, where judges reviewed the evidence and the earlier ruling.The central question was whether Josephine had shown that her son made a promise, that she relied on it when transferring the property and that the couple’s refusal to return it was unfair. The judges found that the evidence supported her account.They agreed with the lower court that Carmine had promised to transfer ownership back to his mother whenever she requested it. They also accepted that Josephine had relied on this assurance when she signed the property over to him and his wife.The judges also noted that the trial judge had heard the witnesses directly and was therefore in a better position to assess their credibility. After reviewing the findings, they saw no reason to overturn the earlier decision.
Court rejects couple’s arguments
Carmine and Denise raised several objections to the earlier ruling. One concerned Denise’s ownership rights. The couple argued against applying the court’s order to her share of the property. However, the appeals court found that her ownership could also be covered by the order requiring the property to be held for Josephine’s benefit.The couple also questioned whether a verbal promise could be used to challenge a formal property transfer. Property transactions generally involve written documents, and the defendants relied on legal rules concerning written agreements and evidence to challenge Josephine’s case.However, the appeals court found that those rules did not prevent the lower court from acting on Carmine’s verbal promise in these circumstances. The judges also agreed with the decision to reject the couple’s claims against Josephine.The appeals court thus upheld the cancellation of the October 2003 deed and the order protecting Josephine’s interest in the property. It also awarded her legal costs.