State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Beale

• Decision Date: 05 July 1967
• Citation: 227 N.E.2d 924,353 Mass. 103
• Parties: STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY et al., Trustees v. Raymond E. BEALE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 924

227 N.E.2d 924

353 Mass. 103

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY et al., Trustees v. Raymond E. BEALE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

Argued May 3, 1967.

Decided July 5, 1967.

Gael Mahony, Boston (William L. Payson, Walter N. Kernan, Richard S. Chute, Joseph D. Steinfield, Boston, with him), for plaintiffs.

Henry S. Levin, Weymouth (B. Robert Levin, Boston, with him), for defendant.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

The objective of this bill in equity, brought in the Land Court, is to impose a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiffs on a parcel of land in Rockland (the locus) which, it is alleged, the defendant fraudulently caused to be registered in his name.

The averments of the bill may be summarized as follows: The plaintiffs were the owners of the locus, a twenty-five acre parcel of woodland. The defendant, knowing of their ownership, or claim of ownership, petitioned the Land Court for a decree of registration, and fraudulently represented that he did not know of any other persons having an estate or interest in the locus. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not receive the notice by registered mail afforded a party in interest in a registration proceeding. The only notice given was one by newspaper publication of which the plaintiffs had no knowledge. The title examiner appointed by the court reported that the defendant did not have a record title proper for registration. The defendant thereupon filed two false affidavits in support of a claim that he and predecessors in interest had acquired title by adverse possession. One affidavit, by the chief assessor of Rockland, asserted that the defendant's predecessors in interest had been assessed for the locus (twenty-five acres) for many years, although the assessors' records show that for most of that time the defendant's predecessors had been assessed for five acres. The affiant, who was familiar with the actual facts, made the affidavit either with intent to defraud the Land Court or with such wilful disregard of the facts as to be tantamount to fraud. The other affidavit recited certain information concerning the ownership, and use of the locus, of which the affiant, in fact, either had no knowledge or knew to be false. The defendant knew of the falsity of this affidavit and filed it with the intention of deceiving the court. In reliance on these affidavits, the Land Court, on October 31, 1960, entered a decree registering the locus in the defendant's name.

The present bill was brought on March 20, 1962. The defendant demurred. The basis of the demurrer was that the bill was not brought within one year of the decree of registration in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 185, § 45. ¹ The provisions of § 45 relied on are those which provide that a decree of confirmation and registration 'shall be conclusive upon and against all persons * * * (and) shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding at law or in equity for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land, or of any estate or interest therein, by a decree of registration obtained by fraud to file a petition for review within one year after the entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest.'

The judge rendered a decision in which he ruled that the plaintiffs' bill was 'in the nature of a petition for review under c 185, § 45, and that the plaintiffs have not complied with the statutory provision that a petition for review be filed within one year after the entry of the decree of registration.' The judge further ruled 'that the Land Court has no jurisdiction (in equity) to award damages for fraud in procuring the decree.' An interlocutory decree sustaining the defendant's demurrer and a final decree dismissing the plaintiffs' bill were entered. The plaintiffs appealed.

It is well settled that a traditional remedy for a person who has been deprived of land through fraud is specific restitution. 'A person who has tortiously acquired or retained a title to land * * * is under a duty of restitution to the person entitled thereto.' Restatement: Restitution, § 130. The duty to make such restitution is often enforced by imposing a constructive trust. In Barry v. Covich, 332 Mass. 338, at p. 342, 124 N.E.2d 921, at p. 924, we said, 'A constructive trust may be said to be a device employed in equity, in the absence of any intention of the parties to create a trust, in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other where the legal title to the property was obtained by fraud * * *.' See Restatement: Restitution, § 160.

The bill prays that the defendant 'be ordered to convey * * * (the locus) to (the) Plaintiffs * * * by a good and sufficient deed such as to entitle the Grantees to a certificate of title * * * (and for) such other * * * relief as shall * * * seem meet and proper.' The bill does not directly challenge the registration decree; the plaintiffs do not ask that the decree be declared void and the locus removed from the registration system. Rather they acknowledge that the legal title is now vested in the defendant and claim title by means of a constructive trust. The question, then, is whether a bill to impose a constructive trust on registered land may properly be treated as a 'petition for review' of the registration decree, and thus, pursuant to G.L. c. 185, § 45, must be brought within one year of that decree. We are of...