Hutchinson v. Hutchinson

Citation6 Mass.App.Ct. 705,383 N.E.2d 82
PartiesEben HUTCHINSON v. Sarah M. HUTCHINSON et al. 1
Decision Date29 November 1978
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Philip Litman, Salem (Charles F. Grimes, Beverly, with him), for defendants.

John S. Leonard, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before KEVILLE, GOODMAN and BROWN, JJ.

BROWN, Justice.

By this action for equitable relief brought in a Probate Court, the plaintiff sought to have the defendants Sarah M. Hutchinson (his second wife) and Robert N. Roop (Sarah's son by a former marriage) compelled to reconvey to the plaintiff (1) various shares of stock, (2) the marital domicile (locus), and (3) funds in a bank account. The action was tried together with actions by the plaintiff for divorce and by Sarah for separate support. The trial judge filed "Findings, Rulings, and Order for Entry of Judgments." In the action for equitable relief he ordered that judgment enter directing (1) that the various shares of stock (or the proceeds of the sale thereof) be transferred by Sarah to the plaintiff, (2) that title to the locus be divested from the defendant Roop (to whom Sarah had conveyed it) and be vested in the plaintiff and Sarah as tenants by the entirety, and (3) that one-half of the funds from the bank account (which Sarah had withdrawn and placed in an account in another bank in her name and that of Heather Roop, her daughter by a former marriage) be transferred to the plaintiff. The judge also ordered that judgments enter dismissing the plaintiff's divorce action and awarding Sarah separate support. No appeal has been taken from the ensuing judgments in the latter two actions.

Within ten days of the ensuing judgment in the action for equitable relief, the defendants filed a motion for a new trial of that action. Mass.R.Civ.P. 59, 365 Mass. 827-828 (1974). 2 While that motion was pending the defendants filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in the action for equitable relief. Subsequently, the motion for a new trial was denied. The defendants filed no new notice of appeal from the judgment after the denial of the motion for a new trial. The defendants' motion for a new trial having suspended the finality of the judgment (see Mass.R.A.P. 4, 365 Mass. 847 (1974) and the fifteenth paragraph of the Reporter's Notes to Mass.R.Civ.P. 59, Mass.Ann.Laws, Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure at 375 (1974)), the notice of appeal they filed was premature. 6A Moore, Federal Practice, par. 59.09(4), at 3856 (2d ed. 1974), and cases cited in note 15. However, since the plaintiff has not been prejudiced by the prematurity of the notice of appeal, we will not avoid a decision on the merits on the basis of such a technicality. Stokes v. Peyton's Inc., 508 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1975). 9 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 204.14 (2d ed. 1975). See Keohane v. Swarco, Inc., 320 F.2d 429, 432 (6th Cir. 1963), and Firchau v. Diamond Natl. Corp., 345 F.2d 269, 271 (9th Cir. 1965). Rather, we treat the notice of appeal as "an effective, although inept, attempt" to appeal from the judgment in the action for equitable relief. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).

We have before us the judge's findings of fact together with portions of the transcript designated pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 18, 365 Mass. 864-867 (1974), as amended effective July 1, 1976, Mass. (1976). In these circumstances we cannot set aside the judge's findings unless they are clearly erroneous, but we may find facts in addition to those found by him. Sanguinetti v. Nantucket Constr. Co., --- Mass.App. ----, ---- - ---- A, 361 N.E.2d 954 (1977). See Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974).

Accepting as true the judge's undisputed findings of fact, we summarize the relevant evidence in its aspects most favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an attorney specializing in real estate law. In 1968 he married Sarah, who worked as a nurse during at least a portion of the time they lived together. The following year they acquired the locus as tenants by the entirety, the plaintiff contributing approximately $44,000 and Sarah $11,000 of the $55,000 cost. In September, 1974, the plaintiff's first wife, from whom he had been divorced in 1967, filed an action for contempt in which she alleged that the plaintiff owed her over $12,000 in back alimony and child support payments. The plaintiff denied the arrearages and filed a petition to modify the decree ordering the alimony and child support payments.

In the spring and summer of 1975 the plaintiff developed a severe drinking problem, and on July 9 he voluntarily entered a hospital for treatment. Upon his release from the hospital in early August the plaintiff visited the lawyer he had hired to represent him in the litigation with his first wife. 3 The lawyer advised him that, pending the outcome of the litigation with his first wife, he should transfer his assets to Sarah's name in order to prevent the first wife from attaching those assets and so that he could honestly testify under oath that he did not own them. 4 Sarah was not present at the meeting but was aware of the litigation.

On August 8 the plaintiff executed a deed to Sarah of his interest in the locus. The deed was recorded and shortly thereafter came into Sarah's possession. The plaintiff also arranged with his stockbroker to have various shares of stock owned by him (and worth at the time over $40,000) transferred to Sarah. He had purchased these shares of stock entirely with his own money.

In early December, 1975, the action for contempt brought by the plaintiff's first wife was dismissed upon the plaintiff's agreement to pay her $1,250. 5 On Christmas Eve the plaintiff resumed drinking for the first time since he had entered the hospital the previous July. On January 5, 1976, the plaintiff and Sarah separated, and ten days later the plaintiff voluntarily reentered the hospital for treatment. On January 23, without informing the plaintiff, and without consideration, Sarah conveyed the locus to the defendant Roop. Two days later, again without informing the plaintiff, she withdrew the entire $9,700 balance from a savings account at the Ipswich Savings Bank which was in her name. Both the plaintiff and Sarah had deposited certain of their earnings in this account and had used the money in the account to pay household expenses as the need arose. Sarah redeposited the $9,700 in an account in her name and that of her daughter Heather Roop at the Danvers Savings Bank.

The plaintiff was released from the hospital on February 5, 1976. He sought a reconciliation with Sarah until, in March, he learned of her conveyance of the locus and withdrawal of funds from the savings account at the Ipswich Savings Bank. The present litigation resulted.

In addition to the above evidence the plaintiff was allowed over the defendants' objection to give the following testimony. Before conveying his interest in the locus and transferring the stock to Sarah he had a conversation with her in which she indicated that she understood "that all (the plaintiff's) property was being put in her name . . . to protect (him) against any legal encounters (he) might have," and "that (the) house and the stocks and bonds were put in her name for (his) benefit." Sarah "said she would hold title for" the plaintiff.

1. The shares of stock. The judge ruled that Sarah "holds, in trust, for the benefit of the (plaintiff) the . . . shares of stock." Whether a trust in the stock was created depends upon whether there was a "manifestation by the parties of an intention that a trust be created, a question of fact." Levy v. Levy, 309 Mass. 486, 489-490, 35 N.E.2d 659, 661 (1941), and authorities cited. Russell v. Meyers, 316 Mass. 669, 672, 56 N.E.2d 604 (1944). The plaintiff's testimony as to his conversation with Sarah prior to the transfer of the stock, if properly admitted, supports a finding that the parties did manifest an intention that Sarah hold the stock in trust for the plaintiff's benefit. Zak v. Zak, 305 Mass. 194, 196, 25 N.E.2d 169 (1940) and cases cited. Levy v. Levy, 309 Mass. at 488, 489-491, 35 N.E.2d 659. See Chretien v. Chretien, 356 Mass. 463, 465, 252 N.E.2d 879 (1969). Contrast English v. English, 229 Mass. 11, 12, 118 N.E. 178 (1917), and Druker v. Druker, 268 Mass. 334, 339-340, 167 N.E. 638 (1929).

The defendants, however, contend that the plaintiff's testimony as to the conversation should have been excluded pursuant to G.L. c. 233, § 20, First. We disagree. Section 20, First, of G.L. c. 233, as amended through St.1963, c. 765, § 3, does not disqualify a husband from testifying to private conversations with his wife "in a proceeding arising out of or involving a contract made by a married woman with her husband." This is such a proceeding. The transaction entered into by the plaintiff and Sarah, as testified to by the plaintiff, constituted a contract by which the plaintiff transferred his stock (and his interest in the locus) to Sarah in exchange for her promise or undertaking to hold the property in trust for the plaintiff. 6 See Twomey v. Crowley, 137 Mass. 184 (1884), Cromwell v. Norton, 193 Mass. 291, 293, 79 N.E. 433 (1906), and Kemp v. Kemp, 248 Mass. 354, 358, 142 N.E. 779 (1924). See also Bennett v. Littlefield, 177 Mass. 294, 300, 58 N.E. 1011 (1901), and Ross v. Ross, 2 Mass.App. 502, 513, 314 N.E.2d 888 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 947, 95 S.Ct. 1329, 43 L.Ed.2d 425 (1975). Compare § 17 with §§ 203 and 204 of Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees (2d ed. 1965).

Sarah having repudiated the trust, the judge's order that the stock be returned to the plaintiff must be upheld (Cram v. Cram, 262 Mass. 509, 511-512, 160 N.E. 337 (1928); Levy v. Levy, 309 Mass. at 490, 35 N.E.2d 659) unless under the clean hands doctrine the plaintiff should have been denied the aid of a court of equity on the ground that the transaction was fraudulent as against his first wife. Sarah...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Chappee v. Com. of Mass.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • March 18, 1987
    ...31, 35-36, 422 N.E.2d 1369 (1981); Blackwell v. E.M. Helides, Jr., Inc., 368 Mass. 225, 226, 331 N.E.2d 54 (1975); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 Mass. App.Ct. 705, 707-08 (1978); see also Smith & Zobel, Massachusetts Rules Practice, Massachusetts Practice Series Vol. 8, § 52.6-52.7 (1977 & Su......
  • Bruno v. Bruno
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 7, 1981
    ...in this former practice. Zuckerman v. Blakeley, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 686-687, 338 N.E.2d 836 (1975). See Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 705, 707-708, 383 N.E.2d 82 (1978); Nickerson v. Fiduciary Trust Co., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 317, 318, 375 N.E.2d 357 (1978). Although this court has not ......
  • Anthony v. Anthony
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • December 24, 1985
    ...time. For examples see: Swampscott Educ. Assn. v. Swampscott, 391 Mass. 864, 865-866, 464 N.E.2d 953 (1984); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 Mass.App. 705, 707, 383 N.E.2d 82 (1978); Yaretsky v. Blum, 592 F.2d 65, 66 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 817, 102 S.Ct. 96, 70 L.Ed.2d 87 (1981);......
  • Rauh, In re
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 6, 1997
    ...262 Mass. 509, 160 N.E. 337, 339-40 (1928); Moore v. Mansfield, 248 Mass. 210, 142 N.E. 792, 793-94 (1924); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 705, 383 N.E.2d 82, 87 (1978). In each instance, the contributing spouse either averred or testified that he never intended to donate any bene......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT