1962-10-23r
CITY F SALEM - ASSESSORS' DEPARTMENT
Location Block Lot No.
�' Cert. No. _Doc. No.
Dated / Book S 0 0 k Page 5
Recorded o
u u
Consideration$ Pat,� �i� DEED
\/ Buildings mentioned GRANTOR
Description:
aw. �l
a
CLI
Reference to title: . ;J 00 9
Plan of bj 9 Same P remises, JB
P.
Pl. No. Pl. Cert. No. From W �-
Rec. B. c� S. 1 P. To n I
Lots
� Date
CITY OF SALEM - ASSESSORS' DEPARTMENT
Location Block Lot No.
/- Cert. No. Doc. No.
Dated 7 `-'���. �6 Book jf--() 6 :? Page S
Recorded 2) DEED
,'1
Consideration
a�.�
" Buildings mentioned GRANTOR
Description:
GRANTEE
,
Reference to title: B. 700
Plan of by �� y Same Part os-fremises, (P. 5'2
Pl. No. Pl. Cert. No. From .
Rec. B. 3 q U P. / To
Lots Date
7i96 �
• CITY OF SALEM — ASSESSORS' DEPARTMENT
Location Block Lot No.
Cert. No. _Doc. No.
Dated 17 �Q.r , Book 5 Q Page 5 K
Recorded
") -/— DEED
Consideration $ P �,� �
V,Buildings mentioned GRANTOR
Description: J ,
��� rr-►� � ' ao .
� GRANTEE
CL
al- T',
Referencc'to title: B.
Plan of lc c n___:_ i
�• I q �'a $ es, l P.
Pl. No. — Pl. Cert. No. From
Rec. B. P.
Lol cJ� To 5 d .
Date 6 , / C,5
C0�1MON`N'1"ALt11 01, 1� cl���A(.lIiJSL .l1s
SUPI?FtIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
No.
- r
-..
t�.
!( �/��'rrr-'.-.... .-..1...-........ .. ... ...._....... Deftmdant(s)
-4;
JUDGMENT
This fiction came on for (trial) (3, ) before the court,
presiding, wid the issues having been duly (tried) (4eaaml) and findings having been duly rendered,
It is OitDEftL-D and AnjvvcLD:
1
that the defendants William F. King and Alyce M. King each convey
one-fourth interest in 4 Upham Street to the plaintiff Charlotte
}:ing, as provided by law, and her costs of action.
Lilted at / `=�� /f ; Massachusetts, this ,2 3 -r day of
U
�-------- -------------
Assisiant Clerk
r'
COMMONWEALTH OF IdASSACHUSETTS ,
Essex, ss . _. • Superior Court
No. 20858 In Equity
CHARLOTTE KING}
V.
14ILLIAM F. KIIG, ET AL
FINDINGS, RULINGS AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, a widow, whose husband died in 1901,
sues i,er son William F. King arx] his former wife Alyce M. King
for title to land and two-family house thereon at 4 Upham Street ,
U•a le m.
Plaintiff contends and I find that defendant William
F . holds title to one-fourth of this property in trust for the
O
s
Plaintiff; and that Alyce M. .King holds _one-fourth of this property
in trust for the plaintiff . The trust is a resulting trust.
Plaintiff is the beneficiary.
The property was purchased by plaintiff in 1954.
She took title in the name of William. _At the time William was
single and a veteran. Title was taken in the name of William
by agreement between the--mother and son,- so that the mother could
r
-2-
.dvantage of the GI Bill of Rights with regard to mortgages .
Th'; sug-esticn to do this was made by the bank which lent tha
!.'�Dn'ay for the purchase . It was agreed at .the time of transfer
that plaintiff Would pay off the entire bank mortgage. It was
also agreed that William would hold naked title only, and that
n between mother and son he would pay no Fart of the consideration
for the conveyance . This arrangement was carried out. Plaintiff
trade all the mortgage payments between 1954 and the date in 1974
when the mortgage was discharged .
The price for tie property was sixty-nine hundred
dollars . The bark mortgage was sixty-five hundred dollars . The
small down payment was made by plaintiff. Both William and his
father signed the mortgage note ..
William married Alyce in 1958. As husband and
wife these people lived on the second floor at 4 Upharn Street ,
They were tenants of the plaintiff. They paid plaintiff monthly
rent for this tenancy until 1973 .
In May 1973 Alyce filed a divorce proceeding in the
Probate Court at Salem. This divorce becan;e final in 1974. -
Plaintiff had nine children. She received little
formal education . Her children have been and remain supportive
Of the mother in this litigation.
-3-
During all the years between 1954 and 1974,
olaintiff was the true owner of the property. Neither her sob
nor his wife exercised any control or ownership rights in
connection 1th the property. They r.ere solely tenants .
Ln 1950" plaintiff made some ch:Anges in the title .
She took one-half of the title in her o:qn nana . On the same
day she signed a will leaving this one-half interest to her
youngest son. She placed the other one-half interest in the
name of William and Alyce . There was no consideration for any
of these changes . All three parties here involved used the
services of one lawyer to accomplish these changes—
A plausible explanation for these changes is that
plaintiff wanted to provide for her youngest son in case of her
d::ath and also add A1yce ' s name to that part of the title which
t.ould continue to be held by William. William at. the time had
a serious drinking problem. Whatever the exact reasons for
the transfers may have been, I find that as to the interests of
William and Alyce, it remained the property of the. plaintiff held
by the defendants for her benefit . William and Alyce became
successor trustees to William. The resultinig trust established
in . 1954 continued as to their one-half interest in tha property.
I find the plaintiff had no intention of making a
gift of any part of har property fo her. son or his wife.
The resulting trust which started in 1954 did not
r.- ._.�L...o... �Tr . '�_,t:.+da,_•°' ,s.'.:, t'..rt r'r� . Rr'�:
'-4—
end merely by the transfer_ of one-half of the property to
William and Alyce .
I find further from the facts , exhibits and
asonable inferences to be drawn therefrom that Alyce took
title at the 1952 transfer with notice of the trust.
At no time between 1954 and 1974 did either Alyce `
or William assert ownership in the prop? rly contrary to the
Interests of the plaintiff.
I find and rule that when plaintiff was faced with
Lt,:: d � stiu pVoblems of William and his wife, she brought this
= t:it to assert her real. in all of the property. Thus
there is no statute of limitations or laches involved in this
case .
William filed no appearance in the' case . I find
that he is Milling to deed his interest to his mothar. A 1udg.w2nt
is to be entered against him ordering William to convey one-fourth E
interest in 4 Upham Street to the plaintiff.
Alyce did not appear at the trial. I find and
rule that she is a trustee of a resulting trust, the beneficiary
of which is Charlotte M. King. Judgment is to be entered against
her ordering her to convey one-fourth interest in 4 Upham Street
to the plaintiff.
In reaching the conclusions above set forth, I have
''�r'��I�'¢�1p�r gK���r � �.;�„. t.�...-.•.t� .a�'»?°�"` 'F�����x r,,£.. ' .- . ,...�, s
k !i"'b r�r $.g _x. 7 }, :3`.,, a� ps ,.q•k ?.a w, i<
_5_
b-nen aided by the following cases :
Howe v. Howe, 199 Mass .598 (1908)
Epstein v. Epsteir., 287 Mass . 248 (1934)
Russo V. Russo, 3 Mass . App. Ct . 364 (1975)
ANDREW R. LINSCOI`r
JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COJRT
Entered : OAO
3,