In order to establish a constructive trust, one must look at whether a duty exists between the two parties. A fiduciary duty can arise from the circumstances of a conveyance. Furthermore, when parties have a relationship of trust and confidence, a duty can exist outside of normal fiduciary duties. The Court held that it could not examine the relationship between the Maffeis and the representatives of the RCAB without examining religious issues outside of the purview of the First Amendment. However, the Court did not have to examine the religious relationship between the plaintiffs and the RCAB to find a legal basis that they shared a special relationship. For example, criminal law has long respected the right of clergy, of any religion, not to be compelled to testify against criminals who have confessed to them in their role as clergy. In this way, clergy are differentiated from laity in the law, and this recognition actually encourages religious freedom. Likewise, while it would be inappropriate...

Moreover, the Court could have investigated whether the RCAB or its representatives should have been expected to know of the plaintiffs' belief that the RCAB owed them a fiduciary duty. In that capacity, the Court could have looked at canon law. After all, canon law reflects an agreement between parishioners and their religious organization. While courts may be powerless to enforce canon law, the First Amendment would not appear to prohibit examination of canon law to examine whether it contains any overt or implied promises of duty. However, even if the Court had examined the facts, because Waldo intended to make his conveyance prior to the RCAB making any alleged promises about the property, the Court correctly concluded that there was no constructive trust.