Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Driscoll v. Santella
Citations: 122 N.E.3d 1100; 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1117Docket: 17-P-1437
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; January 16, 2019; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
Judith A. Driscoll filed a complaint on January 13, 2017, seeking to establish a resulting trust in real estate against her parents, Dorothy E. Santella and Andrew A. Santella. The Santellas successfully moved to dismiss the complaint based on res judicata, and the court affirmed this decision. The background includes the Santellas purchasing a plot of land in 1977, later transferring it via quitclaim deed to themselves and Judith's husband, Joseph Driscoll, in 1996. In 2011, the Santellas alleged that Judith fraudulently conveyed title to herself and others, seeking to void the deed and affirm their ownership. Judith denied their claims and filed nine counterclaims, none of which included the resulting trust argument. The probate court voided the deed in 2014, confirming the Santellas and Joseph as the rightful owners. In 2015, Judith attempted to intervene in a partition action but was denied, although the judge allowed her to pursue other actions regarding the resulting trust. Judith filed her complaint in Superior Court in 2017, which the Santellas moved to dismiss based on claim preclusion. The court found that the probate action barred Judith's claims due to the identity of the parties and the nature of the causes of action, determining they arose from the same transaction. Judith contends the actions are not identical, arguing the probate action focused on the deed's validity, while her complaint concerns the original property purchase. The court views this distinction as artificial, affirming the dismissal based on the claim preclusion doctrine. A probate action revealed a dispute over property ownership, with Judith claiming rights based on transactions relevant to the probate case. Despite a stipulation agreement limiting trial issues, Judith had ample opportunity to assert her ownership claim and previously denied the Santellas’ ownership. The court found an identity of causes of action between the probate action and the current case, fulfilling the criteria for claim preclusion. The probate judgment was deemed final, carrying preclusive effect, as it was based on a reasoned opinion and subject to review. Judith contended that she was exempt from claim preclusion due to an alleged reservation of her claims in the partition action. However, the court determined that the judge's statement in the partition case did not explicitly reserve her rights for future actions, thus the exception to claim preclusion did not apply. The judgment was affirmed, and to reduce confusion, the court referred to Joseph and Judith Driscoll by their first names.