Aitchison v. Chamberlain

• Decision Date: 18 October 1922
• Citation: 136 N.E. 818,243 Mass. 16
• Parties: AITCHISON v. CHAMBERLAIN et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

243 Mass. 16

136 N.E. 818

AITCHISON

v.CHAMBERLAIN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Oct. 18, 1922.

Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester County.

Suit by Ella M. Aitchison against Frederick H. Chamberlain, trustee, and another, to set aside a postnuptial agreement and a deed conveying property in trust, and for restoration of the petitioner to her statutory rights of dower, homestead, and other rights.Reserved by a single justice for determination by the full court on the pleadings, the master's report, and the exceptions thereto.Bill dismissed.

By the postnuptial agreement plaintiff agreed to accept the sum of $7,000 in full settlement of all claims and demands which she then had or might thereafter acquire in her husband's property or estate.The bill alleged that she was induced to enter into such agreement by reason of false and fraudulent representations respecting the amount and value of the husband's property, and that the husband fraudulently represented to her that he had good cause for divorce against her and for that reason she was entitled to no interest and had no rights in his property, that he intimidated, coerced, and unduly influenced and overcame her will and that he conceived the purpose to cheat and defraud her and procured her to enter into such agreement as a part of such scheme.By the deed of trust the husband conveyed his property to the defendanttrustee but reserved the right to designate the beneficiaries to whom the trust property was to be distributed upon his death.The bill also alleged that a Mrs. Maynard residing with the husband purporting to be his nurse or housekeeper, unduly influenced him to name her as beneficiary under such trust deed and to defraud plaintiff and deprive her of any interest which she might have had in the husband's property.By amendmentshe alleged that the trust agreement was void because it was a testamentary instrument not executed with the required formalities of such instruments.The master found that the husband withheld no information respecting his real estate and made no false or fraudulent representations; that while he represented that he had a good cause for divorce plaintiff was not advised and did not consider that he had such cause and was advised fully concerning her legal rights, that the postnuptial agreement as finally executed was a fair, just and reasonable compromise; that plaintiff was guilty of laches; that a special verdict in a divorce action between the parties was not conclusive because it might have been rendered for the reason that the parties were living separate by mutual consent; that any undue influence exerted by Mrs. Maynard was not pertinent or relevant; and that the legality of the trust was irrelevant and immaterial, but that, if pertinent, the conveyance was an absolute conveyance to the trustee.He refused to find expressly whether illicit relations existed between the husband and Mrs. Maynard, but did find that the relations were such that he could not have prevailed in a divorce suit.Arthur Berenson, of Boston, and Edward A. Ryan, of Worcester, for plaintiff.

George S. Taft, of Worcester, for defendants.

CARROLL, J.

This is a bill in equity to set aside a postnuptial agreement and a deed by which the plaintiff's husband conveyed his property, in trust, to the defendant Chamberlain as trustee.The defendant Morey is the executor of the husband's will.The case is before us on the plaintiff's exceptions to the master's report.

The plaintiff married George T. Aitchison November 25, 1907.She was at that time a widow, forty-eight years old, and Aitchison, was a widower eighty years of age.They lived together at his home in Worcester until April 4, 1908, when she left him, and thereafter they did not live together.On May 11, 1911, the postnuptial agreement was entered into.It recites that the plaintiff and her husband are living apart from each other; that it is desired to effect a settlement--

‘of all financial and property matters * * * so as to include all present or future rights, which either now has for any property and estate of the other, and in their respective estates in case of the decease of either.’

It includes a covenant by the husband to pay the trustee $7,000 to be paid by him to the wife in full settlement of all claims against her husband or his estate; covenants by the trustee in behalf of the wife, and by the wife with the trustee, that she will make no claim for separate support during the life of her husband, and no claim for dower, homestead, or statutory heir at law, upon his estate after his death; a covenant by the wife to execute such deeds as may be necessary to release her interest in her husband's real estate; and one by the husband with the trustee that he will make no claim on his wife's estate and will execute such deeds as may be necessary to release his interest in his wife's real estate.

The trustee by a written declaration declares that he holds the property in question to stand seised of the same during the lifetime of Aitchison, and to permit him to occupy and rent the property and to use the proceeds until such time as the trustee may see fit to take over to himself its control; the trustee to have full power to sell or mortgage, and to apply the whole or any part of the income or principal to the...