Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constructive Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews dispute over beneficial ownership and possession of 150 Atwell Circle
Summary
A panel considered whether the trial court clearly erred in finding Peter Lannon’s adult son and his girlfriend held beneficial interests in 150 Atwell Circle and whether a constructive trust or other equitable relief is warranted; the panel took the matter under advisement.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Peter Lannon v. James Lannon and Another, docket no. 24P794, over whether factual findings in the housing court support imposing a constructive trust or other equitable remedies after a summary process proceeding seeking possession of residential property.
Why it matters: The case sits at the intersection of family arrangements and property law: a titleed owner disputes that a substantial down payment and later conduct created a beneficial interest in favor of his adult son and the son’s partner. Decisions in this area affect family property transfers, remedies for improvements, and how courts treat oral agreements involving real property.
Sean Sullivan, counsel for Peter Lannon, told the court the housing judge’s credibility findings were plainly erroneous and that the record did not support the judge’s factual determinations that a $130,000 down payment was a gift and that a constructive trust should be imposed. Sullivan emphasized the limited documentary record: the deed and mortgage list Peter Lannon as sole titleholder for the property purchased in February 2016 for $342,000, and Sullivan argued the purported oral statements and post‑purchase conduct do not show the requisite donative intent or constructive delivery to create a gift.
Counsel for the appellees, Christine Maglione, countered that the record supports the housing court’s findings. Maglione said the evidence showed the son and girlfriend relied on Peter Lannon’s superior credit and financial assistance, that title was placed in his name to secure better financing for the younger couple, and that the son and girlfriend performed mortgage payments, maintenance, and improvements over seven years — facts the judge found sufficient to impose a constructive trust or otherwise remedy unjust enrichment.
The panel questioned whether familial advice and assistance alone create the confidential or fiduciary relationship that sometimes underlies constructive‑trust relief, and it explored alternate remedies such as accounting for improvements and unjust enrichment if a constructive trust is not imposed. Counsel acknowledged limitations in the record — few documentary exhibits tracking improvements or payments — and that the statute of frauds and partial‑performance principles could be implicated depending on the factual findings the court sustains.
Court action: Argument closed with the panel saying the case is under advisement.
