Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/326/326mass163.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:18:12+00:00

Document:
JOHN J. BOYLE & others vs. PHILIP J. OWENS & another.
A decree in a suit in equity setting aside a deed of real estate was proper on findings by the trial judge, not shown by reported evidence to be plainly wrong, that, although the deed was recorded before the grantor's death, the parties thereto did not intend it to effect a present conveyance of the property or to become operative to pass title until the death of the grantor, that there was no effective delivery of the deed during the grantor's lifetime, and that the deed was "an attempt on the part of . . . [the grantor] to make a testamentary disposition of" the property.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on December 6, 1948.
The defendants appealed from a final decree entered after a hearing of the suit by Fairhurst, J.
J. M. Graham, for the defendants.
B. L. Schwalb, for the plaintiffs.
QUA, C.J. , The plaintiffs are three of the seven children and heirs at law of Mary A. Boyle, late of Boston. They bring this suit against their sister, Mrs. Owens, and her husband to set aside a deed of the family residence on Norfolk Street in that part of Boston known as Dorchester. Mrs. Boyle gave the deed to Mrs. Owens and her husband as tenants by the entirety. It was given without consideration. It bore the date of July 24, 1947, but was not recorded until June 28, 1948. Mrs. Boyle died October 13, 1948. The only issue remaining in the case is whether the deed was delivered by Mrs. Boyle in her lifetime as a present conveyance of the property or was intended in lieu of a testamentary disposition to take effect only after Mrs. Boyle's death. The evidence is reported.
The issue is clearly an issue of fact. The trial judge found that the grantor and the grantees in the deed did not intend the deed to effect a present transfer of the real estate, "but the same was an attempt on the part of said Mary A. Boyle to make a testamentary disposition of the said real estate"; that there was no effectual and legal delivery of the deed during the lifetime of the grantor Mary A. Boyle; that the deed was not intended by the parties thereto to become operative and effectual as to title or enjoyment until the death of the grantor; and that the parties to the deed intended that title should not pass to the grantees until after the death of the grantor. The judge entered a final decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
facts were themselves open to varying interpretations, where everything depended upon the oral testimony of witnesses as to what had been done and particularly as to what had been said at past times, where the memory of witnesses and their frankness or the lack of it as disclosed by cross-examination were important elements, and where the trial judge had the great advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses in person. In such cases the general rule applies that findings of fact of the trial judge will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong.
from rent, had been deposited. This arrangement existed after the recording of the deed as well as before. Whether it indicated that the deed was not intended to convey a present title, as the plaintiffs contended, or was merely a convenient family arrangement without significance, as the defendants contended, was for the consideration of the trial judge.
It is not necessary to set forth the evidence in further detail. None of it as matter of law compelled findings in favor of the plaintiffs. But enough has been recited to show that a substantial issue of fact was presented, and that we cannot say the judge was plainly wrong in making the findings which he made.
If the deed was neither delivered nor received as a present conveyance of the property, but was intended as a testamentary disposition to take effect upon the grantor's death, it was not executed according to the statute of wills and was a nullity and did not transfer title to the property. Hawkes v. Pike, 105 Mass. 560. Shurtleff v. Francis, 118 Mass. 154. Hale v. Joslin, 134 Mass. 310. Parrott v. Avery, 159 Mass. 594. Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, 222 Mass. 595. Smith v. Thayer, 234 Mass. 214. Landry v. Landry, 265 Mass. 265. Frankowich v. Szczuka, 321 Mass. 75, 77. Compare O'Loughlin v. Prendergast, 269 Mass. 41, 47, where the trial judge found that there had been a delivery.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.