Brodeur v. American Rexoil Heating Fuel Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1982
• Citation: Brodeur v. American Rexoil Heating Fuel Co., Inc., 430 N.E.2d 1243, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 939 (Mass. App. 1982)
• Parties: Eugene BRODEUR, Sr. et al. 1 v. AMERICAN REXOIL HEATING FUEL COMPANY, INC. et al. 2
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1243

430 N.E.2d 1243

13 Mass.App.Ct. 939

Eugene BRODEUR, Sr. et al. ¹ v. AMERICAN REXOIL HEATING FUEL COMPANY, INC. et al.²

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Argued Dec. 14, 1981.

Decided Feb. 10, 1982.

Leonard S. Michelman, Springfield, for plaintiffs.

Bruce D. Clarkin, Springfield, for defendants.

Before HALE, C. J., and CUTTER and ROSE, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The plaintiffs commenced suit on May 28, 1980, alleging that the defendants had defrauded them of their interests in real property and in certain stock. They seek a determination that certain real estate which had been purchased by the defendants was the subject of a resulting trust and that the proceeds from the sale of that property were the subject of a constructive trust. They also seek to recover the value of the stock which the defendant Maurice R. Brodeur, Sr., allegedly obtained from them by fraud. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was allowed on the ground that the plaintiffs' action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Although the defendants dispute the plaintiffs' version of the facts which underlie this intrafamily dispute, for purposes of deciding this appeal we will consider the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Hub Associates, Inc. v. Goode, 357 Mass. 449, 451, 258 N.E.2d 733 (1970); McMahon v. M & D Builders, Inc., 360 Mass. 54, 56, 271 N.E.2d 649 (1971). See Community National Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553-556, 340 N.E.2d 877 (1976). Accordingly, we accept as true the plaintiffs' allegations and summarize the relevant facts: Because the plaintiffs were subject to an outstanding debt and thus unable to procure bank financing needed to purchase property for their business, the individual defendants, being family, purchased certain real estate and constructed a building for the benefit of the plaintiffs. These defendants never fulfilled their promise to transfer the property to the plaintiffs as soon as the business debt was settled. In addition, the defendant Maurice R. Brodeur, Sr., fraudulently induced the plaintiffs (his father, mother and brothers) to part with the shares of stock they owned in American Rexoil Heating Fuel Company, Inc., the family business. Both of these alleged frauds occurred prior to 1970. In early July, 1971, the defendants attempted to sell the real estate, whereupon on July 13 the plaintiffs commenced suit to obtain the return of monies they had invested in the property. In connection with that suit, they obtained an attachment of the property in order to prevent its sale. This attachment was subsequently discharged by the court on the basis of certain releases which the plaintiffs had previously issued to the defendants relieving them of any potential liability which might result from any prior transactions among the parties. The plaintiffs now contend that these releases, executed on April 8, 1970, were also fraudulently obtained. The defendants completed the sale of the property on September 7, 1971. After the attachment was discharged, the plaintiffs failed to file the writ and declaration for the lawsuit they had commenced against the defendants. In December, 1979, the plaintiffs first discovered that their lawsuit had not been entered and they filed a motion seeking permission to file late the necessary writ and declaration. That motion was denied, and on May 28, 1980, the plaintiffs commenced the instant suit.

1. The trial court was correct in holding that the plaintiffs' action was barred by the statute of limitations. Pursuant to G.L. c. 260, § 2, an action seeking the declaration of a trust based on an implied contract must be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues, i.e when the alleged trust is repudiated or otherwise terminated to the knowledge of the beneficiary. Lufkin v. Jakeman, 188 Mass. 528, 530-531, 74 N.E. 933 (1905); Boston & Northern State Ry. v. Goodell, 233 Mass. 428, 438, 124 N.E. 260 (1919); Quinn v. Quinn, 260 Mass. 494, 497, 157 N.E. 641 (1927); Hanrihan v. Hanrihan, 342 Mass. 559, 567, 174 N.E.2d 449 (1961); Radford v. Lovett, 1 Mass.App. 874, 875, 307 N.E.2d 584 (1974). See generally Bogert, Trusts and Trustees §§ 951-953 (2d ed. 1948 & Supp.1981). In regard to the alleged trust involving the real estate, the defendants' sale of the property in 1971 constituted a clear repudiation that it was being held in...