Sacks v. Dissinger

• Decision Date: 29 December 2021
• Docket Number: SJC-13105
• Citation: 178 N.E.3d 388
• Parties: Matthew SACKS & another v. Nancy DISSINGER & others.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

178 N.E.3d 388

Matthew SACKS & another¹

v.Nancy DISSINGER & others.²

SJC-13105

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued September 8, 2021

Decided December 29, 2021

Robert L. Hamer, Boston, for the plaintiffs.

Mardic A. Marashian, Boston, for the defendants.

Present: Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, & Georges, JJ.

LOWY, J.

This case involves three generations of the Sacks family. After learning that they had been removed as beneficiaries of their grandfather's trust, the plaintiffs, Matthew and Rebecca Sacks,³ brought suit against their aunts and their grandmother's estate. The plaintiffs alleged that their exclusion from the trust -- and their aunts’ correspondingly larger shares of distributions -- arose from undue influence exerted by one of their aunts and their grandmother upon their grandfather.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the claims were time barred under G. L. c. 203E, § 604 ( § 604 ), which requires that actions "contest[ing] the validity of a trust" be brought within one year of the trust settlor's death. A Superior Court judge agreed and granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiffs appealed, maintaining that their claims for intentional interference and unjust enrichment did not challenge the validity of the trust and, therefore, were not time barred by § 604. We transferred this case from the Appeals Court on our own motion.

We conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims for intentional interference and unjust enrichment are substantively different from the trust contests governed by § 604 and therefore are not time barred. We reverse and remand to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Background. We take the following facts from the complaint as supplemented by undisputed facts from the plaintiffs’ grandparents’ probate records. See Galiastro v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 467 Mass. 160, 164, 4 N.E.3d 270 (2014).

The grandparents, Aaron and Sheila Sacks, are deceased; Aaron was the settlor of the trust at issue, and Sheila's estate is represented as one of the defendants. Aaron and Sheila had five children: Jeffrey Sacks, who is deceased, and four of the defendants, Nancy Dissinger, Joan Rosenthal, Donna Sacks, and Cheryl Sacks O'Toole. The plaintiffs, Matthew and Rebecca, are Jeffrey's children.

Aaron established the Aaron H. Sacks Revocable Trust (trust) in August 2011. The original terms of the trust provided that, after Aaron's and Sheila's deaths, each of their five children would receive one-fifth of the trust's assets. If any of their children predeceased Aaron and Sheila, that child's share would go to that child's heirs. By contemporaneous wills and subsequent codicils, both Aaron and Sheila devised the residues of their estates to the trust, including their interests in their family home.

In June 2012, Jeffrey died after battling a brain tumor for almost two years. Based on the recommendation of his doctors and with the support of his son, Matthew, and his sisters Donna and Joan, Jeffrey made the difficult decision to decline any further treatment. Sheila by then was suffering from the effects of a stroke and the onset of dementia. Distraught over her son's end-of-life decision, she blamed grandson Matthew and daughters Donna and Joan for supporting it. Sheila considered them complicit in Jeffrey's "murder." Nancy, another of Aaron and Sheila's children, encouraged this belief in their mother.

Within months of Jeffrey's death, Aaron was persuaded by Sheila and Nancy to remove Jeffrey's heirs as beneficiaries of the trust. Aaron executed an amendment to the trust in July 2012, providing that after Aaron's and Sheila's deaths, the trust property would be divided equally among only their four daughters.

When Aaron died in August 2017, the trust, as amended, became irrevocable. Sheila survived her husband, and during her lifetime, the trust property was to be available only for her health, education, support, and maintenance. Sheila died in July 2019, precipitating the events that brought this matter before us.

The plaintiffs claim that they learned of their exclusion from the trust only upon Sheila's death in July. In November 2019, the plaintiffs commenced this action in the Superior Court, filing a three-count complaint. The plaintiffs first sought rescission of the 2012 amendment; second, they brought a claim against Sheila's estate and against Nancy for intentional interference with advantageous relations;⁴ and finally, they brought a claim against all four of their aunts for unjust enrichment. In each of these claims, the plaintiffs alleged that Nancy and Sheila had exerted undue influence upon Aaron.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that all three counts were time barred under § 604. In response, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed count I (rescission) but maintained that counts II and III (intentional interference and unjust enrichment, respectively) were not governed by § 604 and thus timely.⁵ A Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.

Discussion. 1. Standard of review. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, "accept[ing] as true the facts alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint as well as any favorable inferences that reasonably can be drawn from them." Galiastro, 467 Mass. at 164, 4 N.E.3d 270.

2. Section 604. Adopted as part of the Massachusetts Uniform Trust Code (MUTC), § 604 states in relevant part: "A person may commence a judicial proceeding to contest the validity of a trust that was revocable at the settlor's death within ... [one] year after the settlor's death." G. L. c. 203E, § 604 (a ) (1).⁶ Aaron undoubtedly is the settlor of the trust, and the plaintiffs filed their complaint over two years after Aaron's death; thus, to the extent the plaintiffs are seeking to "contest the validity" of the trust, their claims are time barred. The plaintiffs argue, however, that their claims of intentional interference and unjust enrichment are not trust contests but rather distinct causes of action. The Superior Court judge rejected this argument, holding that, although the plaintiffs’ claims were not pleaded as challenges to the validity of the trust, they remained, in substance, trust contests. We disagree.⁷

The plain language of § 604 suggests that the statute applies to proceedings to litigate, call into question, or challenge the validity of a trust instrument (or any part thereof). Black's Law Dictionary 398 (11th ed. 2019). See Uniform Trust Code § 604 comment (2003) ("A ‘contest’ is an action to invalidate all or part of the terms of the trust or of property transfers to the trustee").

The question that follows is: what does it mean to litigate, call into question, or challenge the validity of a trust? As the plaintiffs seemed to acknowledge by voluntarily dismissing count I (rescission), this definition clearly captures claims -- whatever those claims may be titled -- that seek relief against the trust (e.g., rescission or reformation). Because the relief sought would change or revoke the trust, implicit in any such claim is that the trust, as is, is not legally enforceable or valid. However, while it is necessary to consider the relief sought when determining whether a claim constitutes a trust contest, it is not sufficient. That is, a claim that does not seek rescission or reformation can still be a trust contest. To focus exclusively on the relief sought would be to elevate the labels placed on a claim or prayer for relief over the substance of a claim. Cf. Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 85, 310 N.E.2d 131 (1974) ("we have looked to the ‘gist of the action’ or the essential nature of the plaintiff's claim" to determine whether it sounds in contract or tort).

Our treatment of will contests is informative here. Although the processes by which wills and trusts become objects of contests are quite different, see infra, our analyses of these two instruments -- once they have become objects of contests -- are quite similar. Compare G. L. c. 203E, § 406 ("A trust shall be void to the extent its creation was induced by fraud, duress or undue influence"), with Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 370, 126 N.E. 93 (1920) ("Fraud or undue influence ... invalidates a will ..."). See G. L. c. 203E, § 112 ("The rules of construction that apply in the [C]ommonwealth to the interpretation of and disposition of property by will shall also apply, as appropriate, to the interpretation of the terms of a revocable trust and the disposition of the trust property"). See also Report of the Ad Hoc Massachusetts Uniform Trust Committee § 112 comment, at 11 (rev. July 18, 2012) ("[T]his section made applicable to all trusts the rules of construction applicable to wills. The Committee revised this section to provide that such rules of construction should apply only to ‘revocable trusts,’ defined as trusts intended to be will substitutes").

In the context of wills, we have recognized the distinction between contests, which seek to determine the validity of a legal instrument, and other causes of action, which do not. We have reasoned that "a will contest is in the nature of a property right" and is not a "vindication of personal rights." Sheldone v. Marino, 398 Mass. 817, 819, 501 N.E.2d 504 (1986). The determination of a will's validity "establishes the will against all the world"; it does not ultimately speak to a specific relationship among persons. Finer v. Steuer, 255 Mass. 611, 616, 152 N.E. 220 (1926).

We understand a trust contest, then, as an action where the underlying facts are assessed for their effect on all or part of a trust (e.g., invalidity), while a noncontest is an action where the underlying facts are assessed for their effect on a person (e.g., harm). The ultimate object of a contest is a determination of a trust's...