Jason v. Jason

• Decision Date: 07 January 1935
• Citation: 289 Mass. 72,193 N.E. 554
• Parties: JASON v. JASON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

289 Mass. 72

193 N.E. 554

JASON v. JASON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 7, 1935

Suit in equity by Louise Jason against John A. Jason and another. From unsatisfactory interiocutory and final decrees entered by order of the judge, plaintiff appeals.

Interlocutory and final decrees reversed, and final decree entered in accordance with opinion.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; F. T Hammond, Judge.

C. W Rowley and A. A. Sutherland, both of Boston, for appellant.

FIELD Justice.

The plaintiff by a deed dated October 18, 1930, conveyed to Collen C. Campbell certain land in Hyannis with the buildings thereon. The plaintiff's husband, John A. Jason, joined in the deed. Collen C. Campbell by a deed dated October 23, 1930, conveyed the same premises ‘ to Louise Jason and John A. Jason, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety, and not as tenants in common or joint tenants.’

The plaintiff brought this suit in equity against John A. Jason and Collen C. Campbell as defendants alleging that the execution of these deeds was procured by the fraud of the defendant John A. Jason, and praying that such deeds ‘ be decreed to be null and void and that the defendant [Jason] be required to execute and deliver to the plaintiff a suitable deed in such form and manner as to effectually reconvey said property to her as her sole and separate property, and to remove any cloud upon the record title.’ The defendant Campbell filed an answer disclaiming any interest in the subject matter of the suit or in the real estate in question. The case was referred to a master who made a report which was confirmed. Thereafter an interlocutory decree was entered ordering that unless the plaintiff amended her bill by substituting therefor a new bill of complaint alleging mutual mistake and praying that the deed from the defendant Campbell ‘ be reformed to carry out the original intent of the parties, namely, that Louise Jason should have an estate for life in the premises * * * and that upon her decease the title thereto should vest in John A. Jason in fee’ a final decree be entered dismissing the bill, but that if such an amendment was made a final decree should be entered-the defendant Jason having consented thereto-ordering the deed reformed because of mutual mistake of the parties, and ordering the defendant Campbell to execute and deliver ‘ a deed conveying a life estate in the premises to Louise Jason and upon her death the remainder in fee to John A. Jason.’ From this decree the plaintiff appealed, but without waiving her appeal filed a substitute bill of complaint incorporating the stating part and prayers of the original bill and adding an allegation that the deed from the defendant Campbell was the result of a mutual mistake, and a prayer, in the language prescribed in the interlocutory decree, for reformation of this deed. Thereafter a final decree was entered that the deed from the defendant Campbell ‘ be reformed because of the mutual mistake of the parties,’ and that said defendant execute and deliver a deed in the form prescribed by the interlocutory decree. The plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff contends that the relief given her by the final decree is not adequate and that she is entitled to a decree that the deeds are ‘ null and void’ and to a reconveyance of the premises, or, if she is not entitled to this relief, that she is entitled to have the deed from the defendant Campbell to her and her husband reformed so that the defendant Jason will take thereunder only a remainder in the premises in question contingent upon his surviving her, and not a vested remainder after a life estate in her.

The facts found by the master include the following: The plaintiff and the defendant Jason are husband and wife. They were married October 12, 1926, and again October 18, 1930, the plaintiff in the meantime having secured a decree of divorce in Nevada. Prior to the second marriage the plaintiff and the defendant Jason in contemplation of such marriage agreed that the plaintiff would pay this defendant an allowance of $100 a month and that, as both the plaintiff and the defendant testified, ‘ a deed was to be drawn giving a life estate’ in the premises now in question ‘ to the plaintiff with a remainder in fee to the defendant [Jason], if he should survive the plaintiff.’ This defendant secured an attorney (John W. Connolly) who went with him to the plaintiff's home and was there told by this defendant the nature of the agreement between the plaintiff and himself. This attorney ‘ explained to both parties that an agreement between husband and wife relative to the payment of $100 monthly was not such an agreement as could be enforced in law. He further advised both parties of the various different forms of deeds that could be drafted through a conduit to carry out the purpose and intent of the parties and was instructed to draw a deed. Pursuant to said instructions Mr. Connolly drew two deeds, one to himself as a conduit and one from himself to the plaintiff as a life tenant with a remainder to her husband.’ By the latter deed the attorney granted the premises in question to the plaintiff under the name of Louise Johnson ‘ but if, and not otherwise, said Louise Johnson dies in the lifetime of John A. Jason * * * then upon her death to said John A. Jason.’ These deeds ‘ expressed fully the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant [Jason] but * * * the plaintiff did not understand why the original deed ran from her to Connolly as a conduit and thence returned in a deed from Connolly to herself and John A. Jason. In consequence of this lack of understanding she suggested that the defendant [Jason] take the two deeds to [the defendant] * * * Campbell, an attorney * * * to see if they were all right.’ There was a conference between the defendants.‘ The defendant [Jason] testified that he saw said Campbell and came back and reported to his wife that said Campbell said ‘ Those papers are all right; didn't see anything the matter with those papers,’ but that he would draw other deeds.' But the master found that ‘ Campbell did not say to John A. Jason that the deeds were all right in every respect as hereinbefore quoted but did say that he did not know whether the deeds of Connolly hereinbefore referred to were good or not, but that he, Campbell, would draw deeds that he thought would be satisfactory to all persons.’ Thereafter the defendant Campbell drew and submitted to the defendant Jason two deeds of the premises in question, one from the plaintiff to the defendant Campbell and the other from the defendant Campbell granting the premises ‘ to Louise Jason and John A. Jason, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety, and not as tenants in common or joint tenants.’ Five minutes after the completion of the marriage ceremony on Saturday, October 18, 1930, the deed from the plaintiff to the defendant Campbell was presented to her and without examination on her part, signed. The following Monday the defendant Jason met the defendant Campbell at the office of the town clerk where the latter executed the deed from himself to the plaintiff and the defendant Jason and delivered it to the defendant Jason, who took it and recorded it with the registry of deeds.

The master found that ‘ the changes in the agreement hereinbefore recited as to such conveyance were...