Locator Services v. Treasurer and Receiver
| Decision Date | 11 April 2005 |
| Citation | 443 Mass. 837,825 N.E.2d 78 |
| Parties | The LOCATOR SERVICES GROUP, LTD. v. TREASURER AND RECEIVER GENERAL & another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Salvatore M. Giorlandino, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.
Joseph F. Hardcastle, Boston, for the plaintiff.
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.
The plaintiff, The Locator Services Group, Ltd. (Locator Services), disputes the amount of interest or earnings on 103 eminent domain awards paid to it by the Treasurer and Receiver General on behalf of fifty-five claimants whose property had been taken by eminent domain. Because the eminent domain awards were not initially claimed, the money was paid to the Treasurer and placed under his control pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 7D. When Locator Services ultimately attempted to collect the awards and any accrued interest, the Treasurer paid Locator Services the principal amounts of the eminent domain awards plus simple interest. Locator Services brought this action in the nature of mandamus ordering the Treasurer to pay additional interest on the invested awards pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 10A. A Superior Court judge denied the Treasurer's summary judgment motion and motion to strike an affidavit submitted by Locator Services. We affirm in part and vacate in part the judge's denial of the summary judgment motion and affirm in part and reverse in part his decision on the motion to strike Locator Services's affidavit.
We hold that G.L. c. 79, § 7D, which governs the Treasurer's obligation to invest unclaimed eminent domain awards for the benefit of unknown claimants, requires the Treasurer to invest the awards in one or more of the investment vehicles specified in the statute and to remit to those entitled all interest actually earned on those investments. The statute imposes no fiduciary or quasi fiduciary duty on the Treasurer. To the extent the Treasurer may not have paid Locator Services all interest earned on his investment of the claimants' 103 eminent domain awards after 1993, the Treasurer has breached his statutory duty. Locator Services is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the Treasurer's liability for all interest actually earned. The case is remanded to determine what interest, if any, is owed Locator Services. The question whether, prior to 1993, the Treasurer breached his statutory duty to invest the awards under § 7D is one of fact to be tried on remand. We determine that a three-year statute of limitations is applicable to Locator Services' claims for additional interest, and that the limitations period runs from the date that the claimants received their allegedly insufficient interest payments. On remand, Locator Services will have the opportunity to establish, and the Treasurer the chance to disprove, the existence of a limitations tolling agreement.
Statutory scheme.
We begin with a summary of G.L. c. 79, §§ 7D, 7E, and 10A. Chapter 79 governs eminent domain takings by the Commonwealth and its municipalities. Section 7E requires that when any eminent domain award goes unclaimed for a period of sixty days after proper notice, "such check shall be withdrawn and a new check ... shall be made payable to the treasurer and shall be deposited, held and disposed of in accordance with section seven D." Section 7D then provides:
General Laws c. 200A governs property that, after the requisite passage of time and procedural requirements, is deemed "abandoned" and ultimately vests in the Commonwealth.3 Violations of § 7D are enforceable pursuant to § 10A of c. 79. Section 10A provides:
1. Facts. We summarize the undisputed material facts. Locator Services is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business in Boston. It is in the business of finding and recovering unclaimed assets, including eminent domain awards, for individuals, companies, and other entities that may not be aware of the existence of such funds. In exchange for Locator Services's work on their behalf, these individuals and entities agree to pay Locator Services a percentage of all funds recovered.
In the present action, Locator Services represents fifty-five individuals and entities (claimants) on whose behalf it collected 103 unclaimed eminent domain awards. Each of the claimants has had real property, or its interests therein, taken by the right of way bureau of the Massachusetts Highway Department (bureau) or the Department of Environmental Management (department) between the years 1956 and 1995, pursuant to the provisions of c. 79. With respect to each of the takings at issue, the bureau or the department calculated an award of damages and issued a check for the award pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 7B.4 Because none of the claimants collected these eminent domain award checks within the sixty days specified in G.L. c. 79, § 7E, the bureau and the department placed the awards under the custody and control of the Treasurer to be invested pursuant to § 7D. The Treasurer then placed the awards in an "Eminent Domain Trust Fund"5 (trust fund) during at least some of the time the awards were under his control. Because the eminent domain awards at issue here were held by the Treasurer in the trust fund for a considerable period of time, the amount of interest earned on the older awards may exceed the principal amount of those awards. Having discovered the unclaimed eminent domain awards, Locator Services filed claims with the bureau and the department for the unpaid awards plus interest. After verifying Locator Services's authority to collect the takings awards on behalf of the claimants, the bureau and the department requested that the Treasurer calculate the amount of interest to be paid on each of the awards as a result of their investment in the trust fund. For each of the 103 takings at issue, the Treasurer calculated an interest amount, utilizing simple interest, and issued checks to the claimants for the amounts of their respective eminent domain awards plus simple interest.6 The controversy here arises because Locator Services claims that § 7D requires the Treasurer to pay a greater amount of interest on the invested awards than the simple interest paid.
2. Procedural history. On October 17, 2002, Locator Services filed this action against the Treasurer on behalf of the claimants described above contending that the Commonwealth failed to pay the claimants proper interest due on their various eminent domain awards pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 7D.7 The Commonwealth was joined as a party to this action pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 10A. See note 1, supra. Locator Services alleges three counts in its complaint: count I seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 10A, ordering the Treasurer to pay to Locator Services the difference between the amounts paid to the claimants on their claims (principal plus simple interest) and the amount that they allege should have been paid to the claimants (principal plus the interest actually earned on the awards, which was, according to the complaint, at least in part, compound interest); count II alleges that the Treasurer failed to satisfy his fiduciary duty to invest the proceeds of the unclaimed eminent domain awards with reasonable prudence, and seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to G.L. c. 79, § 10A, ordering the Treasurer to pay Locator Services damages representing the difference between the amounts paid to the claimants and the amounts that should have been paid had the Treasurer fulfilled his fiduciary or quasi fiduciary duty to invest the proceeds with reasonable prudence; count III asserts that the claimants, as beneficiaries of the trust fund, are entitled to an accounting of the Treasurer's management and maintenance of the trust fund or other funds or accounts in which the unclaimed funds or proceeds thereof were held.
In May, 2003, the Treasurer moved for summary judgment on Locator Services's first amended complaint. The Treasurer claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v. City of Somerville
...by the terms of a statute, or appears by necessary implication from them.’ " Id. (quoting Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen. , 443 Mass. 837, 858, 825 N.E.2d 78 (2005) ).22 The City does not have immunity as to the Wage Act claim in Count 3. Unlike the overtime section ......
-
Case of Alves
...it would have been natural for the Legislature to express such an intention"). Accord Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 443 Mass. 837, 858-859, 825 N.E.2d 78 (2005) (borrowing analogous statute of limitations after finding no evidence that "the Legislature intended to......
-
Commonwealth v. Denehy
...“[W]here possible, we construe the various provisions of a [rule] in harmony with one another.” Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 443 Mass. 837, 859, 825 N.E.2d 78 (2005), citing Kargman v. Commissioner of Revenue, 389 Mass. 784, 788, 452 N.E.2d 492 (1983). Rule 36 (b......
-
Finch v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Auth.
...DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 454 Mass. 486, 491, 910 N.E.2d 889 (2009), citing Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 443 Mass. 837, 859, 825 N.E.2d 78 (2005). While § 31 ( a ) excludes federally ineligible immigrants from Commonwealth Care, § 31 ( b ) authorizes St......