Russell v. Lovell
| Decision Date | 11 January 1973 |
| Citation | 362 Mass. 794,291 N.E.2d 733 |
| Parties | Jonathan Livermore RUSSELL v. Richard H. LOVELL et al., guardians. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Guy A. Petralia, Boston, on brief, for petitioner.
Richard W. Renehan and William F. Weld, Boston, on brief, for respondents.
Before TAURO, C.J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
This is a petition brought in the Probate Court by a minor ward praying for an accounting and the distribution to him of his property held by his guardians. The petitioner was born on May 20, 1952. The respondents were appointed guardians of the petitioner on August 29, 1967, by the Probate Court for Middlesex County, at which time the petitioner was a resident of Massachusetts. For the past two years the petioner has been domiciled in the State of Vermont. Vermont Sts.Ann. Title 1, § 173, 1 reads as follows:
After hearing, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner appealed.
The Massachusetts statutes provide that the Probate Court may appoint guardians of minors who are residents in the county or who reside out of the Commonwealth and have an estate within the county. G.L. c. 201, § 1. It is further provided that the guardian of a minor unless sooner discharged shall continue in office until the minor reaches the age of twenty-one. G.L. c. 201, § 4. The question for decision is whether the Vermont statute, which appears to discharge all minors from guardianship at age eighteen, or the Massachusetts statute is applicable to this case.
1. We conclude that the judge was correct in determining that the petitioner is not entitled to an accounting and distribution of the property until he reaches the age of twenty-one. Consequently there was no error in the dismissal of the petition.
Although this is a case of first impression in Massachusetts, other jurisdictions have confronted this issue and are divided. It appears that New York and Tennessee would hold that the law of the domicil of the ward should govern as to the issue of minority. In the Matter of Honeyman, 117 Misc. (N.Y.) 653, 192 N.Y.S. 910, affd. 202 App.Div. (N.Y.) 728, 193 N.Y.S. 936; Woodward v. Woodward, 87 Tenn. 644, 11 S.W. 892. Under this position, the petitioner herein would prevail. On the other hand, Missouri and Oklahoma would apply the law of the jurisdiction creating the guardianship. Gilbreath v. Bunce, 65 Mo. 349; Dudding v. Pitman, 138 Okl. 222, 280 P. 801. Under this position, the petitioner's request for an accounting and distribution of his property would fail.
Our case of Talbot v. Chamberlain, 149 Mass. 57, 20 N.E. 305, suggests that we would apply the law of the jurisdiction creating the guardianship. There we said, 'a change of . . . domicil by a ward . . . cannot affect his status as a person under guardianship in this commonwealth' (p. 59, 20 N.E. p. 306), and our courts will recognize the new domicil 'except so far as it affects the relation of guardian and ward within this jurisdiction' (p. 60, 20 N.E. p. 307). However, unlike the instant case, the guardianship in the Talbot case included custody of the person, and therefore what we said in that case, while helpful, does not necessarily dispose of the instant case, which involves a guardianship of property only. Hence, to buttress our conclusion that Massachusetts law is applicable to this case, we look to the law of conflict of laws as it relates to property.
Property in the custody of a guardian is to an extent similar to property held by a trustee. In National Shawmut Bank v. Cumming, 325 Mass. 457, 91 N.E.2d 337, we applied our law as the law of the State most substantially related to a trust, where the domicil and place of business of the trustee, the res, and the place of execution and administration were all in Massachusetts despite the fact that the domicil of the settlor was in Vermont.
Here, the ward was a Massachusetts citizen at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orlandella v. Orlandella
...support orders has produced a difference of opinion in other States, but it has not previously come to us. In Russell v. Lovell, 362 Mass. 794, 795, 291 N.E.2d 733 (1973), the ward of a Massachusetts guardian had moved to Vermont, where the age of majority was eighteen, and we held that the......
-
Curtis v. Commerce Insurance Co.
... ... supervisory capacity appear in the cases, e.g., Jones v ... Maguire, 221 Mass. 315, 316 (1915); Russell v ... Lovell, 362 Mass. 794 (1973); Guardianship of ... Roe, 383 Mass. 415, 417 (1981); Guardianship of ... Linda, 401 Mass. 783 (1988); In the ... ...
-
Pisani v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...created supervisory capacity appear in the cases, e.g.: Jones v. Maguire, 221 Mass. 315, 316, 108 N.E. 1073 (1915); Russell v. Lovell, 362 Mass. 794, 291 N.E.2d 733 (1973); Guardianship of Roe, 383 Mass. 415, 417, 421 N.E.2d 40 (1981); Guardianship of Linda, 401 Mass. 783, 519 N.E.2d 1296 (......