J. Steven Tikalsky v. Susan Friedman

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting).

*818¶83 I agree in part with Chief Justice Roggensack's dissent. Specifically, I agree that a constructive trust is a remedy, but that this determination is not the question on which this case turns. See Chief Justice Roggensack's dissent, ¶68. I further agree that Steven may continue to pursue the remedy of a constructive trust.1 However, I do not join Chief Justice Roggensack's dissent because, like the majority opinion, it appears to conflate the imposition of a constructive trust on Terry's property with a claim against Terry herself.2

*819¶84 Rather than…