Rogaris v. Albert
Decision Date | 07 January 2000 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | PETER J. ROGARIS v. RONALD L. ALBERT, individually and as trustee, & others. |
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., ABRAMS, LYNCH, GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, & COWIN, JJ.
David Berman for the defendant.
Roy P. Giarrusso for the plaintiff.
Stephen Wainwright, for the interveners, was present but did not argue.
Stephen P. Bik & Joel A. Stein, for The Massachusetts Conveyancers Association & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
A judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has certified three questions to this court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981). These questions arise from a dispute over a purchase and sale agreement for real property between Peter J. Rogaris (buyer) and Ronald L. Albert (seller). The seller, the trustee of a nominee trust, signed a purchase and sale agreement to sell the buyer property that was a trust asset. The questions are:
We answer the third question, "No," and consequently do not reach questions one and two.
1. Background. We rely on the facts as recited by the District Court judge in his memorandum and order on summary judgment. On September 17, 1997, the seller executed a purchase and sale agreement with the buyer for the sale of real property for $375,000. The buyer did not know that on October 27, 1995, the seller had executed a declaration of trust creating the Ronbert Realty Trust (trust) designating himself as trustee and naming his four children as beneficiaries. The buyer also did not know that, on that same day, the seller had conveyed the property that is the subject of the purchase and sale agreement at issue to the Ronbert Realty Trust. 2. Question three. The parties' arguments in this case focus on whether the buyer had constructive notice of the trust provisions pursuant to G. L. c. 203, § 2, and was therefore bound by its terms. We conclude, based on the facts provided, that G. L. c. 203, § 2, has no application here. Section 2 provides constructive notice of the terms of a trust concerning land to every person claiming under a conveyance, attachment, or execution after the trust instrument is recorded in the registry of deeds. In order to have constructive notice of the trust terms, the person claiming under the conveyance, attachment, or execution must know of the existence of the trust. The statute has no application in these circumstances because the facts do not indicate that the buyer had any knowledge of the existence of the trust. Further, the buyer here is not claiming under a conveyance, attachment, or execution, but rather under a purchase and sale agreement.
In any event, the trust provisions are not implicated in the agreement between the buyer and the seller. The facts provided to us indicate that the seller executed the agreement in his individual capacity only and, in such circumstances, the seller binds only himself and not the trust. In interpreting a written contract, such as a purchase and sale agreement, the court gives full effect to all the terms expressed by the parties. J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 789, 795 (1986). The terms stated by the parties will be taken in their plain and ordinary sense unless otherwise indicated by the contract. Morse v. Boston, 260 Mass. 255, 262 (1927), and cases cited. It is not the role of the court to alter the parties' agreement. "Even if it be found that the contract, according to its true meaning ... fails to become operative, it is not for the court, in order to give it operation, to suppose a meaning which the parties have not expressed...." Shoe & Leather Nat'l Bank v. Dix, 123 Mass. 148, 150 (1877).
In this case, the purchase and sale agreement was signed by the seller as "Ronald L. Albert." There is no indication from any language in the purchase and sale agreement that the seller was acting in his capacity as trustee...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galdjie v. Darwish
...as a legitimate exercise of the trustee power even though the instrument fails to reference the trust"]; but see Rogaris v. Albert (2000) 431 Mass. 833, 730 N.E.2d 869 [where trustee signed contract to sell real estate as an individual and made no mention of his role as trustee, trust was n......
-
Robbins v. Krock
...unless otherwise indicated by the contract. It is not the role of the court to alter the parties' agreement." Rogaris v. Albert, 431 Mass. 833, 835, 730 N.E.2d 869 (2000) (citations omitted). We are guided by "[j]ustice, common sense and the probable intent of the parties" when interpreting......
-
Bongaards v. Millen
...as trustee for the beneficiaries of the trust, and she lacked power to convey the property in her individual capacity. See Rogaris v. Albert, 431 Mass. 833, 836 (2000). We reject the plaintiff's argument that the 1979 deed, together with Jean's subsequent conduct, should be considered as ma......
-
Pdc-El Paso Meriden, Llc v. Alstom Power, Inc., 996016BLS
...significant terms and conditions. But it specifically "is not the role of the [C]ourt to alter the parties' agreement." Rogaris v. Albert, 431 Mass. 833, 835 (2000). happened in the period from May of 1999, when BVCI announced its concerns about proceeding, through Claude Darmon's ominous "......