Court Opinion

ID: 2964445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:43.722701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:13.868155
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1180

                        JOSEPH D. FORD, JR., AND DEBORAH FORD,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                       JOSEPH D. FORD AND CME ASSOCIATES, INC.,
                   AS IT IS THE GENERAL PARTNER OF CME GROUP, LTD.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            E. James Veara with whom Sarah A. Turano-Flores and Zisson &
            ______________           ______________________     ________
        Veara were on brief for appellants.
        _____
            Judith G. Dein, with whom James J. Arguin, Warner & Stackpole.
            ______________            _______________  ___________________
        LLP
        ___
        and Christopher Nolland were on brief for appellee.
            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                   November 7, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful consideration of the
                      __________

            arguments, the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment

            of the district court for essentially the reasons set out in

            the district court's opinion.

                      Appellants argue that the district court erred by

            refusing to impose a constructive trust based on the theory

            of unjust enrichment.  They also insist that Joseph D. Ford,

            Jr.'s wife, Deborah, has presented proof of her own equitable

            ownership of the contested premises sufficient to undercut

            the legal effect of her husband's individual quitclaim

            conveyance.  The lower court, however, grasped the

            appellants' basic contentions and ruled correctly as to each. 

            We see no viable theory under which Joseph D. Ford, Jr. and

            Deborah Ford can successfully claim an equitable interest in

            the property, however labeled, especially against CME, a

            creditor of Joseph D. Ford, Sr. and a mortgagee that was not

            privy to any alleged private understandings between the

            junior and senior Fords.

                      Joseph D. Ford, Jr. deeded the property back to his

            father as part of a comprehensive settlement by quitclaim

            deed which, under Massachusetts law, conveys all right, title

            and interest in property.  Fales v. Glass, 9 Mass. App. Ct.
                                       _____    _____

            570, 573-74, 402 N.E.2d 1100, 1102-03 (1980).  Nothing in

            the Stipulation Agreement, including the Fords' general

            reservation of rights, gave Joseph D. Ford, Jr. a right to

                                         -2-

            repudiate the deed which it authorized him to record.  Had

            Ford, Jr. wished  to preserve a right to pursue his present

            claims, he should have made express provision to do so

            instead of deeding all his interest back to his father. 

            There is, moreover, as the district court stated,

            insufficient evidence to support Deborah Ford's claim that

            she acquired an equitable interest in the property such as

            would permit her to repudiate her husband's quitclaim deed

            and overturn CME's mortgage interest.  Her marriage to Ford,

            by itself, did not suffice.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

              

                                         -3-