Sloane v. Sloane

• Citation: 182 N.E.3d 344 (Table),100 Mass.App.Ct. 1125
• Decision Date: 17 February 2022
• Docket Number: 20-P-1407
• Parties: Jonathan G. SLOANE v. Barry R. SLOANE & another.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

100 Mass.App.Ct. 1125

182 N.E.3d 344 (Table)

Jonathan G. SLOANE¹

v.Barry R. SLOANE & another.²

20-P-1407

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Entered: February 17, 2022.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Jonathan G. Sloane, in his individual capacity and as next friend of his mother, Barbara J. Sloane, appeals from a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of his siblings, defendants Barry R. Sloane and Linda Sloane Kay. On the day before we heard oral argument, the parties filed suggestions of death stating that Barbara had very recently passed away.⁴ Barry and Linda also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal asserting that Barbara's death rendered the appeal moot. Jonathan opposed the motion during oral argument and subsequently filed a written opposition to the motion. Barry and Linda then filed a reply⁵ and a letter pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 16 (l), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). Jonathan filed a response to that letter. We conclude that the case is moot and vacate the judgment.

Background. This action concerns real property located in Bourne that was once owned by Barbara and her deceased husband, Marshall. The complaint alleges that Barry and Linda, acting as Barbara's agents pursuant to a durable power of attorney executed by her, transferred the property for the stated consideration of one dollar from Barbara's sole ownership into a realty trust of which Barry and Linda are the trustees. The complaint further alleges that Barry and Linda have used the property to the exclusion of others, including Barbara, who at the time the complaint was filed was suffering from dementia, and an elderly relative to whom Barbara had extended a long-standing invitation. Count one of the complaint asserts that Barry and Linda breached their fiduciary duty to Barbara by conveying the property without adequate compensation and using it to the exclusion of others. Count two of the complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. In his prayer for relief, Jonathan requested that the court: "award [him] as Next Friend to Barbara damages in an amount to be established at trial"; "enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Barry and Linda from using the Property themselves to the exclusion of others without providing adequate compensation in the form of fair market rent, and requiring Barry and Linda to convey the Property back to [Barbara] individually to restore her full ownership of the Property"; and "award Jonathan as Next Friend to Barbara such other relief as is just and reasonable under the circumstances." Barry and Linda filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting that Jonathan lacked standing and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Following a hearing, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that Jonathan lacked standing to pursue the action.

Discussion. "It is the general rule that courts decide only actual controversies ..., and normally do not decide moot cases." Boston Herald, Inc. v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 421 Mass. 502, 504 (1995). The mootness doctrine extends to appellate review of lower court decisions. See International Marathons, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 392 Mass. 376, 380 (1984). "[L]itigation is considered moot when the party who claimed to be aggrieved ceases to have a personal stake in its outcome" (citation omitted). Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 481 Mass. 810, 816 (2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 858 (2020). "A moot case is one where a court can order ‘no further effective relief.’ " Id. at 817, quoting Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights & Economic Justice v. Court Adm'r of the Trial Court, 478 Mass. 1010, 1011 (2017).

Here, Jonathan did not seek damages in his individual capacity; he only sought damages in his capacity as next friend to Barbara based on Barry and Linda's alleged breach of their fiduciary duty owed to Barbara. For injunctive relief, Jonathan sought to prohibit Barry and Linda's exclusive use of the property without compensation and sought conveyance of the property back to Barbara individually. Even if Jonathan was awarded all the relief he sought, it is clear that any damages collected on Barbara's behalf and title to the property at issue would now become part of Barbara's estate.

Barry and Linda provided copies of Barbara's will and the Barbara J. Sloane 2013 Revocable Trust (revocable trust) documents.^{6 ,7} Those documents demonstrate that Barbara's entire estate is to pour over into the revocable trust, Barry and Linda have been appointed to serve as the personal representatives of Barbara's estate and as trustees of the revocable trust, Barry and Linda are to inherit under the will and the trust, and Jonathan and his descendants are expressly excluded from inheriting under Barbara's will and the trust. Therefore, subject to further proceedings in the Probate and Family Court, all relief sought in this action would revert to Barbara's estate, of which Barry and Linda, and not Jonathan, are beneficiaries. Because we can offer no further effective relief and Jonathan has no personal stake in the outcome, this case is moot.⁸ See Branch, 481 Mass. at 816-817.

While we may consider the merits of an otherwise moot issue in limited circumstances, we decline to do so here. See Commissioner of Correction v. McCabe, 410 Mass. 847, 851 (1991) (court may consider moot question "where the issue was one of public...