Locator Services Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver General

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted G. L. c. 79, § 7D, governing the investment of unclaimed eminent domain awards by the Treasurer. The court held that the Treasurer must invest the awards in statutorily specified vehicles and remit all interest actually earned, but that the statute does not impose a fiduciary or prudent-investor duty. The court granted Locator Services partial summary judgment on liability for interest actually earned, rejected its fiduciary-duty claim, and remanded issues concerning the amount of interest, pre-1993 investments, and limitations tolling.

Holdings

1. Section 7D requires the Treasurer to invest unclaimed eminent-domain awards in one or more of the investment vehicles specified in the statute and to remit to the persons entitled all interest actually earned on those investments. The Treasurer may not satisfy the statute by paying only simple interest if the investments actually earned more, whether through simple or compound interest.
2. Locator Services was entitled to partial summary judgment on the Treasurer's liability for all interest actually earned on the investments after 1993; the amount of interest actually earned and any resulting damages remained factual issues for trial.
3. The issue whether the Treasurer invested the awards as required by § 7D before 1993 was a factual issue for trial. If the Treasurer failed to invest the funds in a permissible vehicle, or if the actual investment could not be determined, damages would be measured by the interest that would have been earned in the lowest-yielding permissible investment vehicle.
4. G. L. c. 79, § 7D does not impose a fiduciary, quasi-fiduciary, or prudent-investor duty on the Treasurer. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered for the Treasurer on count II.
5. An accounting could be ordered as necessary to determine damages on the statutory-interest claim, even though the Treasurer owed no fiduciary duty. Count III was remanded only for assessment of damages under count I.
6. Mandamus relief under G. L. c. 79, § 10A is available to enforce the Treasurer's nondiscretionary duties to invest the awards in a statutorily permitted vehicle and remit all interest actually earned, even though the Treasurer retains discretion to choose among the permitted vehicles.
7. Sovereign immunity did not bar the action because G. L. c. 79, § 10A expressly authorizes mandamus relief and damages for violations of § 7D.
8. A three-year statute of limitations applies to actions under § 10A seeking additional interest under § 7D, and the period begins when the claimants receive the allegedly insufficient interest payments.
9. Conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the parties entered into an oral tolling agreement and, if so, whether Locator Services later revoked it. The issue was remanded for trial.
10. The affidavit was properly considered because its additional detail did not contradict earlier statements, and much of the testimony concerned party-opponent admissions or operative verbal conduct rather than inadmissible hearsay. Paragraph 19, which recounted a later conversation with Borden, was hearsay and should be struck.
11. Locator Services had standing because its contingent-fee agreements created an economic interest and the powers of attorney established its authority to sue on behalf of the claimants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether G. L. c. 79, § 7D requires the Treasurer to invest unclaimed eminent-domain awards in one or more of the statutorily specified investment vehicles and remit all interest actually earned.
2. Whether § 7D imposes a fiduciary, quasi-fiduciary, or prudent-investor duty on the Treasurer.
3. Whether mandamus and damages are available under G. L. c. 79, § 10A for an alleged violation of § 7D.
4. What statute of limitations applies to a § 10A action seeking additional interest, and when the limitations period begins to run.
5. Whether a factual dispute existed concerning an alleged oral tolling agreement.
6. Whether the Sawyer affidavit was properly considered in opposition to summary judgment, including whether portions were hearsay or improperly contradicted prior discovery responses.
7. Whether Locator Services had standing to pursue the claims on behalf of the claimants.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded