[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":55,"_73":55},"mediaId",6335312,"mediaKeyId","2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154","parentId",2289793,"title","Appeals court reviews claims that trustee-father-in-law misled groom on prenup and timing of harm","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",4411000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154&start=4411&end=4411","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154/thumbnail_4411000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6335312/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-reviews-claims-that-trustee-father-in-law-misled-groom-on-prenup-and-timing-of-harm","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335312-ccde0aec9aeadf2c43f0a3dbaef846b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775103558&Signature=MY8gbZBG9cdoF9NRtjJF9U8fcXWbCozf0P-pmNS8Ou4F0nB~BTOUjguMEZNNVr-8Xf-ekmcYI6xG~M6snbeDcTS4Ak8kn7dJjd24kCoXzTVYVbGza3blYsEZ0a-8~H-ZkbdH77gBXfF8paI0GUOsOMTLcYG-Q84FwGfX07eZW1cfSJ51Bweo0~dEuh-0OpYIyaDzyAh3-CVGxr6br~dXIWJE5WQVTTEOlSlSXwqzMSjzLSG2mEC5QgS8Zd5Hi-G3~OTTaXm3XYeuHhuL~xJwcw5MrGNfeEUk7NQQlhuUSQtxSOYytFlUKh3oKY2CIQ1XxViUwvq5jaaDC9rtvC~ATQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-12T16:18:30Z","article","Michael Marcucci, counsel for William Cannell, told the panel the trial court mischaracterized Cannell's complaint by treating the plaintiff's post‑marriage injury as if it had accrued immediately. Marcucci said the complaint alleges Morrissey told Cannell he did not need a prenuptial agreement to protect certain family trusts; Cannell relied on that assurance and later incurred legal fees in related Connecticut divorce litigation.

Justice Hand asked whether, under the complaint, Cannell's personal attorney had previously recommended a prenup and whether Cannell effectively credited Morrissey's advice instead. Marcucci said the complaint alleges the attorney's recommendation preceded meetings with Morrissey and that Cannell reasonably relied on the trustee's assurance.

Jennifer Grace Miller, counsel for Robert J. Morrissey, said Cannell had actual knowledge of the relevant facts when he married in February 2006: that Morrissey was both his future father‑in‑law and a trustee and that Cannell's lawyer had recommended a prenuptial agreement. Miller argued those facts meant the statute of limitations accrued then and that a claim could have been filed immediately after the wedding.

Marcucci countered that, absent actual exposure of the trusts in divorce proceedings, Cannell had not yet suffered the legally cognizable harm that accrues a fiduciary‑duty claim; he cited Massachusetts precedent requiring knowledge of harm, not just knowledge of a conflict. He also noted the Connecticut divorce remains pending and that trustees had been dismissed from that proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving open whether the trusts will be reached.

The panel questioned both sides on causation and damages and asked whether declaratory relief would have been an appropriate earlier step; counsel disagreed about whether that remedy would have been available or useful at the time. The court concluded argument and thanked counsel.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, February 12, 2025, Ditkoff, Hand, Walsh, JJ. presiding","oneSentenceSummary","In 24P759 the court examined whether William Cannell (plaintiff) had actual knowledge of harm when he married without a prenuptial agreement after consulting trustee and father-in-law Robert J. Morrissey, and whether the complaint states timely claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and gross negligence.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":55,"_73":55},6335317,"Appeals court hears dispute over ‘identifiable condition’ for disability retirement in Sibley appeal",1735,2708000,4443000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154&start=2708&end=4443","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154/thumbnail_2708000.jpg","/articles/6335317/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-dispute-over-identifiable-condition-for-disability-retirement-in-Sibley-appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335317-1dbbaf688e3d2b3ddb5a12d915d40176/orig.mp4?Expires=1775103558&Signature=UwV~6Nj1Q2S2JfB8Y~VbQU8z1ibr-amRVPbgw2c~R~tGFgtoQCcq8pos3~ErGjs9mSxZCupEpWwv~EeDaqjJDlV4hIKHsgr-ob56Op~c-D~XaFlsrr3WSuSg9eGwS4KPnucYV4BfjKiFmFeSkdECChsPEdtt6LxsF-fwd1Jm8Kf0C4Wq1~UmL-X58rZcSx0uWjBo8kYXXUBSSMUaUwSXB1znUE-0HLgDLvFqniaZMrWQoZhTgVyNp2OTH1n5uC3JwWmbyITUihYDtL2~8xr-TjtcEtaQrB4W51GPesfzecV~Fpqjc7YGC9KCEfRFIjJqIYmSMKTaxZ1B8lMVSGMJzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Catherine Lamondia Ringle, representing Michael Sibley, told the panel that Sibley worked for the town of Northfield performing physically strenuous tasks and was denied accidental disability retirement by the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board. \"The accidental disability retirement essentially gives a worker injured ... 72 percent of their average weekly wage tax free,\" Ringle said, explaining the financial stakes of an accidental-disability designation under Chapter 32, Section 7.

Ringle argued the board misapplied the ‘‘identifiable condition’’ requirement and departed from workers’ compensation jurisprudence that has considered cumulative-stress injuries in related contexts. She said Sibley's record contained medical evidence of \"massive bilateral rotator cuff tears\" and that Crabbe (the board decision) erred in treating the job’s cumulative effect as ordinary wear and tear.

Michael Sacco, counsel for the Franklin Regional Retirement Board, countered that the retirement statute and case law demand something more than long-term physical labor: courts have consistently held that ordinary cumulative physical stress, common to many occupations, does not qualify as an identifiable condition for accidental disability retirement. \"If you decided that that was necessary ... I don't believe they could satisfy that burden,\" Sacco told the panel, explaining the board's view that the policy would otherwise create a presumption for any physically demanding job.

Justices probed whether a medical panel would ever be reached if the threshold legal question of an identifiable condition is not met. The board’s counsel said that identifiable-condition determinations are legal questions and, when appropriate, preclude referral to a medical panel. Counsel and justices discussed case law going back to Zarofsky and related decisions distinguishing workers' compensation cumulative-stress findings from the retirement- board standard.

Ringle emphasized Sibley's intensity and frequency of lifting, pushing and other tasks, noting the decision below did not convene a medical panel and that Sibley had not been afforded that procedure. \"He was not afforded the benefit of a medical panel to even get the opinion from this panel about how it related to his work,\" she said. The court thanked counsel and concluded the argument on this appeal.","The court considered whether Michael Sibley met the statutory standard for accidental disability retirement under Chapter 32 §7 given bilateral rotator cuff tears and years of physically strenuous municipal work.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":55,"_73":55},6335322,"Panel questions whether grand-jury disclosure and clerical error undermined Henry indictment",1484,1197000,2681000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154&start=1197&end=2681","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154/thumbnail_1197000.jpg","/articles/6335322/Massachusetts/Panel-questions-whether-grand-jury-disclosure-and-clerical-error-undermined-Henry-indictment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335322-d74d924a75ce8fdf49802b43615b40a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775103558&Signature=bNjAyN5n1ibgkxG0a4fyXE2GqSBF6awTqax7JiTmq6hWNGfwy9bevVozUsRjKRlChB2XybO4ZKE5EbrBE0jniAPoFuc3bh1klXlmR8N5x3fkYyzwkHmfPsvE85H8qfJIQPfbV5GNr3JytThaqv2qrkCyF6C70cb3f3AO0N4enfW0PkpsZ32WolsygF-m0hrGuKC9cy7JPuk9-XLFwi82gXuC6SYsqTRoFjC3g2fWrIki04WrBQeXFw4Gw6e~uypHQMdw48Rxg0xOWLYUFhYtQdLZobRySOam9Rw5vsO4Yw56tMwE--wNtLs~JvK6SYx7~-8ZqBlLSiKwTDnV8QeKdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Justice Ditkoff called case number 24P445 and said counsel could proceed. Stacy Silvera, representing defendant Brian Henry, argued the incorrect telephone number in the search-warrant affidavit was material to the grand jury's assessment of the sole witness's credibility and therefore should have been disclosed. Silvera said the alleged error went to \"the credibility of the sole witness\" and argued the mistake was not merely clerical because the affidavit repeatedly presented the incorrect number as the affiant's personal knowledge.

Arnaud Hansen, arguing for the Commonwealth, answered that the phone number was not material to what the grand jury considered — the narcotics found at the execution of the search warrant — and described the error as a \"human\" and negligent transcription mistake by another trooper. Hansen told the panel the record showed four controlled buys, surveillance tying the defendant to the buys, and a subsequent seizure of \"a substantial amount of fentanyl,\" a blender with cutting agent and $4,000 in cash at the house.

The panel questioned both sides on procedural posture. Justice Ditkoff and Justice Hand asked whether the Gomez/Rule 12(b)(6) threshold issue was properly before the court on a conditional plea and what remedy the panel should reach if the issue were not properly before it. Both counsel said they treated the issue as properly preserved; Hansen outlined possible outcomes if the conditional plea was not properly before the court and said the practical effect might be vacatur and re-lodging of motions in the Superior Court.

Justices also pressed on evidentiary specifics: whether TrueNarc printouts or drug-certification reports were in the grand-jury record (defense counsel said supplemental police reports and later drug-certificates were in discovery but not presented to the grand jury). Silvera acknowledged uncertainty about some record items but argued the later police attempts to \"cure and explain the mistake\" supported her materiality argument.

The court explored relevance to suppression: Hansen said suppression of the house search would be dispositive of the Commonwealth's case because all narcotics were recovered in the home; suppression limited to the vehicle would not be dispositive because the phone was the only item recovered from the car. Counsel agreed to the practical consequences this allocation of evidence would have on case viability as presented to the panel.","In 24P445 the Appeals Court heard competing arguments over whether a mistaken phone number in a search-warrant affidavit was material to grand-jury proceedings and whether the conditional guilty plea properly preserved threshold issues for appeal.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_46":104,"_48":105,"_50":106,"_52":107,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":108,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":109,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":55,"_73":55},6335327,"Appeals court hears argument over prior-bad-acts evidence and sealed material in 24P2018",968,231000,1199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154&start=231&end=1199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2289793-54891ee2b24533c7136cff095401a154/thumbnail_231000.jpg","/articles/6335327/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-argument-over-prior-bad-acts-evidence-and-sealed-material-in-24P2018","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6335327-b327bbc6ad2987ae7d2f4ea498c5d537/orig.mp4?Expires=1775103558&Signature=U-sSNvu8rnNzgzT-NUOLYIM36ANeT2UIXmfOxA7uO22lF5K1dzkct~ULQuoYkPFoJHvlB6IqzVLPeWDFnAEbw6RdyUTLkNGcy5smGBJ9FhJUQU1WKkU9C43VNd-lht9zW3plCSpVNAbkrcnzBs7Gi73zS85gHkF-un2wiOchwPwsb6A3L3JG1ABhUGWehY0S1HT07agpfxsyI3xZHC7cf20nNRQ4sBIdfLC5Y3d0LefCKyB1Pda0esxMgXioTjBchyHkew~4QEz1KP4mSTUDnSRQsZ1qm8svD1SyGzqoFerPsw6PH76ftORaSyOvYWHmBCJziPzQk3A~v7YFkuntRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Justice Ditkoff, presiding, told counsel at the start of oral argument that sealed material in case number 24P2018 must not be discussed in court. \"The legislature has decided this is sealed, and so we'll just have to avoid that,\" she said.

Tara Ganguly, attorney for defendant David Nudo, told the panel the exceptions to the rule against admitting prior-bad-acts, sometimes called propensity evidence, have \"swallowed the rule.\" Ganguly argued that the contested evidence was ‘‘sandwiched’’ in the testimony between charged conduct and that its admission likely confused the jury, contributing to a split verdict.

Jennifer Cohen, arguing for the Commonwealth, responded that the evidence was offered for a non‑propensity purpose: to provide context for the parties’ relationship and the victim’s state of mind. \"This evidence was relevant for a non propensity purpose,\" Cohen said, and she added the trial judge limited questioning about some aspects of the prior incident and gave contemporaneous instructions to the jury.

The panel pressed both sides on how the jury used corroborating evidence. Justice Hand noted instances where officers observed injuries or where the stun gun and other items were recovered; Ganguly acknowledged some corroborative evidence was admitted but said that did not resolve whether the admitted prior conduct was prejudicial when combined with how the Commonwealth used it in opening, cross‑examination and closing argument.

The court also discussed preservation of objections and whether defense counsel had properly lodged an objection after the trial judge's in‑limine ruling. The advocates cited split‑verdict precedent the parties had briefed, with Ganguly pointing to Commonwealth v. Dwyer as an example where a split verdict supported a finding of prejudice in admitting prior acts.

The panel closed the argument by noting the difficulty created by the procedural rule: the judges said they had reviewed briefs and appendices and would consider sealed material despite the parties' inability to speak about it at argument. Justice Ditkoff told counsel, \"I assure you that we have read the brief and the appendices. We're familiar with your cases, and so you should jump right into your argument.\"","A three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments in 24P2018 about whether prior-bad-acts testimony was improperly admitted and how to handle sealed, impounded information that attorneys cannot mention at oral argument.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court reviews claims that trustee-father-in-law misled groom on prenup and timing of harm

Appeals court hears dispute over ‘identifiable condition’ for disability retirement in Sibley appeal

Panel questions whether grand-jury disclosure and clerical error undermined Henry indictment

Appeals court hears argument over prior-bad-acts evidence and sealed material in 24P2018