Summary
The court affirmed findings for the defendant in an action involving alleged deceit and breach of statutory quitclaim covenants arising from the sale of a lot lacking access to a recorded right of way. It held that the plaintiff could not establish reliance for the deceit claim because he relied on an independent title examination, and that the lack of a right of way was not an encumbrance “made by” the defendant under Massachusetts law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial justice’s allowance of the plaintiff’s requests stating the elements of deceit was inconsistent with the ultimate finding for the defendant on the deceit count.
- Whether the evidence supported the finding for the defendant on the deceit claim where the plaintiff did not rely on the defendant’s representations.
- Whether the defendant breached the statutory quitclaim covenant by conveying the plaintiff’s lot without a usable right of way when the lack of a right of way resulted from a predecessor’s earlier conveyance and the defendant had not affirmatively created the encumbrance.
Holdings
- There was no conflict between allowing the plaintiff’s legally correct requests describing deceit and finding for the defendant because the plaintiff still had to prove every essential element, including reliance.
- The finding for the defendant on Count 1 was warranted because the plaintiff did not rely on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.
- The defendant did not breach the quitclaim covenant because the alleged encumbrance was not made by the defendant or her successors in title; it resulted from a predecessor’s earlier failure to reserve a right of way.
Key quotations
“This Decision cannot reverse findings of fact made by a trial judge if the same are warranted by the evidence reported.” (93)
“In the light of the omission of the words ‘or suffered’ from the statutory form, we interpret ‘made’ as implying something more than mere inaction by the grantor of the type here shown.” (96)
Factual background
The plaintiff purchased a Wenham lot from the defendant for $7,500, believing that the lot had access to Porter Street over a recorded twenty-foot right of way. Earlier conveyances had failed to reserve a right of way benefiting the plaintiff’s lot, and the plaintiff later was prevented by court order from using the driveway and could not build a house. Before completing the purchase, the plaintiff obtained independent title examinations and the trial judge found that he relied on those investigations rather than on the defendant’s representations.
Procedural history
Alley sued Oakes in two counts, alleging deceit and breach of the statutory quitclaim covenant in a deed. The trial court found for Oakes on both counts, denied Alley’s requests for rulings on the contract claim, and denied his motion to amend the findings based on an alleged inconsistency between the rulings and the judgment. The case was reported to the Appellate Division, which upheld the trial justice’s disposition and dismissed the report.