Ciarlo v. Ciarlo

• Decision Date: 11 April 1923
• Citation: 244 Mass. 453,139 N.E. 344
• Parties: CIARLO v. CIARLO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

244 Mass. 453

139 N.E. 344

CIARLO

v.CIARLO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

April 11, 1923.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.

Suit by Guiseppe Ciarlo against Maria Ciarlo, plaintiff's divorced wife, to compel conveyance of interest in real estate purchased and paid for by plaintiff, but conveyed to the parties as joint tenants. From a final decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition.

James M. Graham, of Boston, for appellant.

James H. Vahey and Philip Mansfield, both of Boston, for appellee.

CARROLL, J.

The complainant alleges in his bill of complaint that in April, 1912, he purchased a tract of real estate with his earnings, and ‘with no money or consideration furnished by the’ respondent, ‘who was then his wife’; that the conveyance was in the name of both the complainant and the respondent as joint tenants, with the ‘understanding that if at any time subsequent to acquiring said property,’ the complainant ‘should request her to transfer to him all her right, title, and interest in said property, she would do so.’ It was understood ‘between the parties * * * that the respondent should take thereby no beneficial interest in the property by way of gift, settlement, or advancement.’ ‘Subsequent to the execution of the deed * * * the respondent began living a dissolute life, and * * * upon April 5, 1921,’ ‘as a result of her profligacy and adulterous conduct,’ the complainant was granted a divorce.

In the superior court a decree was entered for the complainant, ordering the respondent to make conveyance to him of all her title in the land. The judge found that when the property was purchased with the complainant's money, his wife, who previously had had improper relations with men, was named in the deed upon the distinct understanding, stated in the presence of her father, that she would not thereafter have such relations, and that the complainant, relying upon her promise to be a true wife, caused her name to be inserted in the deed as a joint tenant of the property; that when the respondent promised to be a true wife she did not intend to keep her promise, but did intend to continue her improper relations with men. Thereafter she frequently committed adultery, and about two years before the hearing she left her home and children and went to live with another man, with whom she has continued to live as his wife.

Upon the allegations of the bill as drawn, the complainant is not entitled to relief. The averments are insufficient to establish a resulting trust for his benefit. Nothing is shown or alleged in the bill from which a resulting trust can be raised by implication of law or from the supposed intention of the parties and the nature of the transaction. See English v. English, 229 Mass. 11, 118 N. E. 178;Keown v. Keown, 230 Mass. 313, 119 N. E. 785;Sigel v. Sigel, 238 Mass. 587, 131 N. E. 316. The complainant relies on an express contract that the respondent would transfer to him her interest in the estate upon his request. No trust can result from such an express agreement and he is not entitled to relief on this ground. In addition to this the agreement was between husband and wife. See G. L. c. 209, § 2. Nor was the agreement in writing as required by the statute of frauds. ‘No trusts concerning land, except such as may arise or result by implication of law, shall be created or declared unless by a written instrument signed by the party creating or declaring the trust or by his attorney.’ G. L. c. 203, § 1; Keown v. Keown, supra.

Although the complainant cannot recover on the case stated in ...