35 N.E.3d 765
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Priscilla Cotgageorge opened and funded an IRA in 1997; the signed form named her husband as primary beneficiary and two contingent beneficiaries: "James Cotgageorge, Jr." (66%) and "J. Edward Cotyup" (34%).
- The handwriting filling in beneficiaries was not Priscilla's; the parties agree "J. Edward Cotyup" refers to her stepson Edward, but no one named "James, Jr." exists in the family.
- Priscilla died intestate in 2007; James (her husband) predeceased her, making the contingent beneficiaries entitled to the account.
- Merrill (Bank of America/Merrill Lynch) notified Edward in 2009 that he would receive both shares; Jamie (Priscilla’s daughter and administratrix) filed a complaint for instructions in 2010 to challenge payment of the 66% share to Edward.
- At trial the judge found no clear proof of mistake and awarded the entire IRA to Edward; Jamie appealed arguing a scrivener’s error and seeking reformation to reflect that she (Jamie) was the intended 66% beneficiary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ciampa) | Defendant's Argument (Cotgageorge) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether naming "James, Jr." is a scrivener's error | The non‑existent "James, Jr." shows clear scrivener mistake on the form | The signed form and Priscilla's legal experience indicate beneficiaries reflected her intent | Court: "James, Jr." is a scrivener's error (designation of a non‑existent person is clear proof of mistake) |
| Whether the IRA can be reformed to make Jamie the 66% beneficiary | Jamie: extrinsic evidence (relationship, father’s similar bequest proportions) shows intent to benefit her | Edward: argues the form reflects intent for him to receive both shares (nickname theory) | Court: Reformation in favor of Jamie not proven by clear, decisive evidence; her claim speculative |
| Whether award of entire account to Edward was supported | Jamie: even if "James, Jr." is not her, that does not establish Edward as intended for both shares | Edward: the form, Priscilla’s signature, and their family history support awarding whole account to him | Court: No basis to award both shares to Edward; where beneficiary unascertainable his share fails and cannot be given to another without proof |
| Disposition of the 66% share when intended beneficiary is unascertainable | Jamie: requested the 66% be paid to estate or to her | Edward: sought the full account | Court: The 66% resulting trust fails as to an ascertainable beneficiary and therefore vests in a resulting trust for Priscilla’s estate; the 34% paid to Edward without interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Berman v. Sandler, 379 Mass. 506 (recognizing reformation for scrivener mistake in trust instruments)
- Pond v. Pond, 424 Mass. 894 (designation of a non‑existent beneficiary is clear proof of scrivener's error)
- DiCarlo v. Mazzarella, 430 Mass. 248 (trust instrument and attendant circumstances govern settlor's intent for reformation)
- Ventura v. Ventura, 407 Mass. 724 (trust must show intent to vest legal estate; failed trust shares result to settlor or estate)
- Woodward Sch. for Girls, Inc. v. Quincy, 469 Mass. 151 (appellate review where court is left with firm conviction that a mistake has been committed)