Saulnier v. Saulnier, 103 N.E.2d 225 (Mass. 1952). · Go Syfert
Search
Saulnier v. Saulnier, 103 N.E.2d 225 (Mass. 1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Callahan v. United States (In Re Callahan) (mab, 2009-11-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Callahan v. United States (In Re Callahan)
Bankr. D. Mass. · 2009 · confidence medium
Id. at 268 (quoting Goldman v. Finkel, 341 Mass. 492, 494 , 170 N.E.2d 474, 475 (1960); Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 , 103 N.E.2d 225, 226 (1952)). 155 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Mills
Mass. App. Ct. · 1992 · confidence medium
Compare Williams v. Commercial Trust Co., 276 Mass. 508, 517 (1931) (all funds expended came from “money belonging to or credit lent to” one party); Gerace v. Gerace, 301 Mass. 14, 18 (1938) (party signed mortgage as a convenience — no obligation to pay — deemed “a loan of credit”); Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 (1952) (only the party that was “primarily liable” on mortgage “paid anything”); Bartula v. Bartula, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 907, 908 (1978) (husband alone signed mortgage, but wife also assumed the obligation of the mortgage and contributed to payments made tow…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rossi v. O'Brien
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1981 · confidence medium
Whether the transfer of $10,000 to the use and benefit of Gulla was intended as a gift must be ascertained from the intentions of the donors at the time of the initial transaction.’ Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 (1952).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Russo v. Russo
Mass. App. Ct. · 1975 · confidence medium
The defendants admit that the plaintiff and Anthony paid the whole purchase price for the property and it would appear that the defendants’ execution of the note and mortgage was a loan of credit to the plaintiff and Anthony (see Gerace v. Gerace, 301 Mass. 14, 18 [1938]; Murphy v. McKenzie, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 553, 555-556 [1973]) rather than part of the consideration for the purchase (see Ken-nerson v. Nash, 208 Mass. 393, 398 [1911]; Cohen v. Simon, 304 Mass. 375, 378-379 [1939]; and Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 [1952]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caron v. Wadas
Mass. App. Ct. · 1974 · confidence medium
Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 239 (1952), and cases cited. 3 The respondent argues that the petitioners furnished no portion of the purchase price of this property and therefore cannot claim as beneficiaries of any resulting trust therein.
discussed Cited "see" DeCroteau v. DeCroteau
Mass. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 (1952) (postconveyance payments cannot create a resulting trust unless payments act as "contemplated consideration for the conveyance"); Meskell v. Meskell, 355 Mass. 148, 151 (1969) (fraud or violation of fiduciary duty giving rise to constructive trust must occur at time property was transferred).
examined Cited "see" Feinman v. Lombardo (3×)
D. Mass. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 , 103 N.E.2d 225, 226 (1952).
cited Cited "see" Robinson v. Robinson
Mass. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238, 240 (1952); Goldman v. Finkel, supra, at 494 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Young v. Paquette
Mass. · 1960 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Saulnier v. Saulnier, 328 Mass. 238 (the original record shows that the statute was not pleaded; the alleged trustee refused to convey) ; Banicar v. Goodwin, 326 Mass. 710 (statute pleaded).
Levine Saulnier & Another vs. Henry J. Saulnier & Another
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Jan 7, 1952.
103 N.E.2d 225
V. R. Brogna, for the defendants., H. Lawlor, (R. I. Landau with him,) for the plaintiffs.
Ltjmmus, Qua, Lummus, Ronan, Spalding, Counihan.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
[*239] Ltjmmus, J.

On August 25, 1950, the plaintiffs, Levine Saulnier and her husband Edmund Saulnier, filed this bill against their son Henry J. Saulnier and his wife Dorothy to compel the defendants to convey to the plaintiffs land and a two family house at 20 Landers Street in Somerville, which had been conveyed by the Independence Realty Corporation to Henry on May 29, 1947. In the Superior Court a final decree was entered on March 15, 1951, in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and the defendants appealed. The evidence is reported, and there is a voluntary finding of fact.

At the time the property was purchased Henry was unmarried, but he married in May, 1948. The price of the property was $7,100, which was paid with the proceeds of a mortgage note for $7,100, secured by mortgage of the property. The mortgage note was made by Henry, but was indorsed by his father Edmund. The mortgage was obtained under the veterans readjustment act. Henry, as a veteran, could obtain such a mortgage, but his parents could not. Since the purchase the plaintiffs, with many of their children, have lived in one apartment of the house, while the other apartment has been let. Henry has lived elsewhere.

The judge found that when the property was purchased it was understood that it was to belong to the plaintiffs. That understanding could not create an enforceable express trust in favor of the plaintiffs, for by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 203, § 1, “No trust concerning land, except such as may arise or result by implication of law, shall be created or declared unless by a written instrument signed by the party creating or declaring the trust or by his attorney.” But implied trusts are expressly saved from the operation of that statute. Peabody v. Tarbell, 2 Cush. 226. Quinn v. Quinn, 260 Mass. 494, 497.

If an implied trust, not prohibited by the statute of frauds, is shown in this case, it is of the familiar type created by the taking of title in the name of one person while the purchase price is paid by another. Druker v. Druker, [*240] 308 Mass. 229, 230. Collins v. Curtin, 325 Mass. 123, 125. The judge found that the plaintiffs paid to the grantor the purchase price of the property together with the miscellaneous expenses of the transfer. But a study of the reported evidence shows that that finding lacks support in the evidence. The purchase price was $7,100, and this was paid with the proceeds of a mortgage note for $7,100 made by the defendant Henry and only indorsed by his father. Henry remains primarily liable, and it does not appear that the father has paid anything. Nothing was paid by the plaintiffs when the property was bought except a deposit of $50 and $96 as expenses of the transfer. The judge found that the income from the tenement not occupied by the plaintiffs would not pay the carrying charges of the property, and that the plaintiffs paid them and improved the property. But it is settled that a resulting trust must arise if at all at the time of the conveyance to the alleged trustee, and that subsequent payments cannot create one, if they are not the contemplated consideration for the conveyance. Moat v. Moat, 301 Mass. 469, 472, and cases cited. Exchange Realty Co. v. Bines, 302 Mass. 93, 99. Cohen v. Simon, 304 Mass. 375, 377. There is no evidence of any agreement that the plaintiffs, rather than the defendant Henry, would pay off the mortgage, as there was in Davis v. Downer, 210 Mass. 573, Williams v. Commercial Trust Co. 276 Mass. 508, and Gerace v. Gerace, 301 Mass. 14, 18. See Scott, Trusts (1939) § 456.2. The present case more resembles Cohen v. Simon, 304 Mass. 375, and Carroll v. Markey, 321 Mass. 87.

In our opinion the evidence does not warrant the relief that was given.

Final decree reversed.

Bill dismissed with costs.