Matteson v. Walsh
79 Mass. App. Ct. 402
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- This is a cross appeal from a Superior Court bench trial on waste to real property in Chatham.
- Elizabeth Matteson, as remainder holder, sued Robert Walsh, the life tenant, for waste.
- Dorothy Walsh’s 1977 will gave Walsh a life estate, with the remainder to Walsh’s heirs, Matteson, and Baisly.
- Starting about 2004 Walsh stopped paying property taxes and water bills, leading to a tax taking notice in 2005.
- Matteson and Baisly paid delinquent taxes and, after Walsh failed to reimburse, Matteson paid about $120,000 for repairs.
- The trial judge found waste by nonpayment of taxes and by neglecting the property, awarded about $65,000, and divested Walsh of his life estate, with title to be held by Matteson, Walsh, and Baisly as tenants in common.
- The court remanded to identify Walsh’s heirs to determine the remaining ownership interests under the residuary clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waste from nonpayment of taxes and neglect constituting waste | Matteson argues Walsh’s failure to pay taxes and neglect harmed the remainder | Walsh contends nonpayment and neglect are not wasteworthy of substantial injury | Waste established for taxes leading to tax taking and for property neglect |
| Remainder and residuary interpretation; Walsh’s form of ownership | Matteson argues remainder passes to heirs with Matteson and Baisly as direct remainders | Walsh argues for a life estate plus a holder in common under residuary | Walsh’s one-third in common to Walsh is incorrect; remainder passes to Walsh’s heirs; remand to identify heirs |
| Timing and method for determining heirs under the remainder | N/A | N/A | Remainder heirs determined as of distribution date; remand to identify heirs of Walsh |
Key Cases Cited
- Thayer v. Shorey, 287 Mass. 76 (1934) (waste defined as unreasonable use causing substantial injury)
- Delano v. Smith, 206 Mass. 365 (1910) (waste as harm to the estate and obligation to preserve property)
- Pynchon v. Stearns, 11 Met. 304 (1846) (predecessor concept of remainder after life estate)
- Lothrop v. Thayer, 138 Mass. 466 (1885) (life tenant duty to preserve estate for remaindermen; stricter standard)
- Worcester Trust Co. v. Turner, 210 Mass. 115 (1911) (rule on lapse and residuary interests in class beneficiaries)
- Crowell v. Chapman, 257 Mass. 492 (1926) (life tenant may be a remainderman if in class of remaindermen)
- Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Schmitt, 349 Mass. 669 (1965) (heirs determined as of event date for class description)
- Hershman-Tcherepnin v. Tcherepnin, 452 Mass. 77 (2008) (interpretation of life estates and remainder under contemporary terms)