Court Opinion

ID: 9744346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:01:13.75599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.680032
License: Public Domain

Wilkins, J.
(dissenting in part). General Laws c. 206, § 24, as it is involved here, is analogous to a statute of limitations. It says that, when a trustee’s account has been allowed, the matters disclosed on that account are settled unless there has been “fraud or manifest error.” G. L. c. 206, *313§ 24, as amended by St. 1938, c. 154, § 1. The opinion of the court concludes that the implied representation that Mrs. Troland was not remarried is “fraud” within the meaning of § 24. I disagree.
The term “fraud” in § 24 must be interpreted consistently with the clear purpose of § 24 to make trustees’ accounts final, as a general rule, when allowed by the Probate Court. However, the court’s interpretation of “fraud” makes the exception in § 24 almost as broad as the scope of the general rule otherwise contained in that section. The trustee’s misrepresentation is of a class which is typical of the kinds of errors of fact which can be reflected in an account. Almost every trust account has inherent in it a representation concerning the age, continued survival, or marital status of one or more people. The decision of the court today leaves open indefinitely for contest all such implied representations in all accounts, past and future.
The record shows a pathetic inattention to duty. The bank’s inaction clearly warranted a finding of negligence. However, the court’s alchemic decision today transmutes negligence into fraud when that negligence results in an implied representation of fact in a trust account. If the Legislature had intended trust accounts to be impeachable because of the negligence of the accounting trustee, it could have said so, and, if the Legislature had said so in the 1938 amendment to § 24, most informed people would have regarded the 1938 amendment as largely meaningless. See 21 Mass. L.Q. (No. 3) 16 (1936).
In construing § 24, we are not engaged in deciding whether the trustee should be liable for its action or inaction. We are concerned with what circumstances justify reopening the trustee’s accounts. While a mistaken representation of a fact capable of precise knowledge made as of one’s personal knowledge may be a “technical” or “constructive” fraud under tort law, even that circumstance does not entitle one to relief when the statute of limitations has run. Here, where a broad definition of “fraud” is read into § 24, the legislative purpose of finality is overridden, and the exposure to liability is made timeless.
*314The court’s opinion pays little attention to the theory of the task before it — the construction of a statute in order to arrive at the legislative intent behind the word “fraud.” I doubt that in 1938 the Legislature intended “fraud” to include the concept of “fraud” in tort actions for deceit. In Compton v. State Ballot Law Comm’n, 311 Mass. 643, 655 (1942), construing the term “fraud” in G. L. c. 53, § 22A, as appearing in St. 1938, c. 192, a 1938 statute, we held that an implied representation concerning a fact was not fraud “as that word is ordinarily understood” where the representation was mistaken but made with no intent to deceive. Indeed, in our previous decisions under G. L. c. 206, § 24, we have indicated that a narrower definition of fraud was appropriate to achieve the legislative purpose of protecting the finality of Probate Court decrees. See O’Brien v. Dwight, 363 Mass. 256, 285-286, 288-289 (1973). The purpose of the exception to finality in § 24 can be achieved by interpreting “fraud” in § 24 to mean fraud “as that word is ordinarily understood,” which requires a misrepresentation with intent to deceive. The parties agree that no such circumstance is involved here.
Because the court’s opinion thwarts the purpose of the 1938 amendment, I would hold that the accounts may not be reopened in these circumstances.