GEORGE K. MORRIS, Trustee of the 24-26 George Moreland Trust vs. TRACY HUDSON, [Note 1] FITZHUR BROWN, MICAH S. WILLIAMS, and 24-26 MORELAND STREET, LLC. [Note 2]

Plaintiff George K. Morris, trustee of the 24-26 George Moreland Trust ("Plaintiff") commenced this case by filing an unverified Complaint on September 29, 2011, seeking, pursuant to G. L. c. 240, § 6, to remove a cloud on title with respect to property purportedly owned by Plaintiff and located at 24-26 Moreland Street, Dorchester, Suffolk County, Massachusetts (the "Disputed Property"), as well as declaratory relief with respect to the ownership of the Disputed Property pursuant to G. L. c. 231A. [Note 3] On October 26, 2011, Defendant Fitzhur Brown (also known as "Lee Brown") ("Fitzhur") filed an Answer. Defendant Micah S. Williams ("Williams") filed an Answer on November 23, 2011. A case management conference was held on December 21, 2011.

On July 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his claims as against Hutson, which I allowed on August 7, 2012. [Note 4] A pre-trial conference was held on August 5, 2013. A one-day trial (the "First Trial") was held at the Land Court on October 9, 2013. [Note 5] Following the First Trial, Plaintiff and Fitzhur each filed motions seeking to admit newly-discovered evidence, each of which motions were denied after a hearing held on November 12, 2013. Plaintiff filed his post-trial brief on January 21, 2014. Fitzhur filed his post-trial brief on February 6, 2014. At that time the matter was taken under advisement.

On May 14, 2014, the court issued a Decision ("Land Court Decision 1") and Judgment (the "Judgment") finding, inter alia, as follows:

(1) that the chain of title under which Plaintiff claimed ownership of the Disputed Property (the "Patricia Brown Chain of Title") was invalid; [Note 6]

(2) that the chain of title under which Hutson then or formerly held title to the Disputed Property (the "Tracy Hutson Chain of Title") was invalid; [Note 7]

(3) that the chain of title under which Sandra Brown ("Sandra") then or formerly held title to the Disputed Property (the "Sandra Brown Chain of Title") was invalid; [Note 8]

(4) that the chain of title under which Fitzhur claimed ownership of the Disputed Property (the "Fitzhur Brown Chain of Title") was invalid; [Note 9] and,

(5) that, because each of the four chains of title at issue were invalid, Dorothy, as trustee of the Trust , still held title to the Disputed Property for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the Trust.

On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration and amendment of Land Court Decision 1 and the Judgment, which I denied on July 2, 2014. [Note 10] On July 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the Judgment, claiming to have discovered new evidence, which I denied on August 19, 2014. [Note 11]

Plaintiff filed notice of his appeal of Land Court Decision 1 and the Judgment on July 30, 2014. On June 15, 2015, the Appeals Court issued a decision (Morris v. Brown, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1130 (Table), *3 (2015) -- the "Appeals Court Decision") on Plaintiff's appeal, vacating in part and affirming in part Land Court Decision 1 and the Judgment. As rationale for doing so, the Appeals Court stated that "given how the parties and the judge framed the issues at trial . . . the plaintiff was not seeking to rely on (or to challenge) the [the Sandra Brown and Tracy Hutson] chains of title." Appeals Court Decision 1, 87 Mass. App. Ct. at *3. Thus, the court found, "the plaintiff lacked notice that the validity of [the Sandra Brown and Tracy Hutson] chains of title was being tried." Id.

On the specific issue of the Sandra Brown Chain of Title, the Appeals Court went on to conclude as follows:

there was no trial evidence that the beneficiaries had not endorsed that sale [in the November 2010 Sandra Deed] and, in light of the "conclusive evidence" provision of the [Trust], the plaintiff had no burden to establish that the beneficiaries had authorized or endorsed the sale. Therefore, even had the validity of the [Sandra Brown Chain of Title] been presented, the plaintiff had no burden to prove that this facially valid chain of title did not suffer from a hidden defect.

Id. Accordingly, the court continued:

That leaves the question of what disposition is appropriate. Because we conclude that the validity of the [Sandra Brown] and [Tracy] Hutson chains of title should not have been at issue at trial, we vacate the fourth [Tracy Hutson Chain of Title], fifth and sixth [Sandra Brown Chain of Title] paragraphs of the judgment (which purported to adjudicate the validity of those chains of title) as well as the final paragraph of the judgment (which declared that [Dorothy] Essor still held title to the property).[ [Note 12] ] We let stand the other paragraphs of the judgment, which are not challenged on appeal.[ [Note 13] ] So much of the order denying the motion for reconsideration as denied the request that the judge "make no conclusion with respect to the validity of the plaintiff's chain of title via [Sandra Brown Chain of Title]" is vacated; the remainder of that order is affirmed. The order denying the motion for relief from judgment is affirmed.

Id. at *4. In a footnote to the Appeals Court Decision, the Appeals Court stated as follows:

We emphasize that the appeal before us is a narrow one, and that this case does not include several parties with a potential stake in the dispute: [Dorothy] Essor, Sandra Brown, the beneficiaries ofthe trust, and the putative new purchaser of the property. Nothing in this memorandum and order should be read as resolving who holds proper title to the property.

Id. at *4, n. 10. The Notice of Rescript from the Appeals Court was entered in this court on July 15, 2015. [Note 14]

While Plaintiff's appeal was pending, Sandra, having replaced Dorothyas trustee of the Trust, purported to convey the Disputed Property to Moreland. See discussion, infra. Thus, on remand to this court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 2, 2015, adding Moreland as a party Defendant. [Note 15] Moreland filed an Answer on December 30, 2015. At a status conference held on January 19, 2016, the parties disputed whether a new trial was needed or whether the remaining issues could be resolved on summary judgment motions. Plaintiff filed a statement of proposed undisputed material facts on January 26, 2016, and Moreland filed its response on February 2, 2016. At a status conference on February 4, 2016, this court determined that there were material facts at issue, and thus that a new trial was called for. [Note 16]

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a pre-trial memorandum. On March 3, 2016, Moreland filed a pre-trial memorandum, and Plaintiff filed a reply to Moreland's pre-trial memorandum. A pre-trial conference was held on March 4, 2016. A remand trial (the "Remand Trial") was held in the Land Court in Boston on Monday, April 25, 2016. Testimony at the Remand Trial for Plaintiff was given by Janet Blake (a notary public) ("Blake"), Sandra, Lincoln Brown (grandson of Dorothy and son of Sandra) ("Lincoln"), Timothy O'Callaghan (principal of Moreland), and Mark Wilson (a notary public). [Note 17] Moreland did not call any witnesses at the Remand Trial. The parties submitted twenty-four agreed-upon exhibits submitted into evidence, and four additional documents were marked for identification. Post-trial briefs were filed by both parties on July 5, 2016, at which time the case again went under advisement.

Of even date hereof, the court has issued a Decision ("Land Court Decision 2"). NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons stated in Land Court Decisions 1 and 2, it is hereby:

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, by agreement of the parties, for the reasons stated in Land Court Decision 1, the Tracy Hutson Chain of Title is invalid; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that there is insufficient proofto conclude that Dorothylacked the mental capacity to execute the November 2010 Dorothy Deed [Note 18] and/or the Dorothy Affidavit [Note 19], and, thus, that both such documents are presumptively valid; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Dorothy, as trustee of the Trust, did not have the unanimous assent of the Beneficiaries [Note 20] to convey the Disputed Property to Sandra by the November 2010 Dorothy Deed, and thus lacked authority to do so; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Beneficiaries failed to effectively ratify the ultra vires action of Dorothy to enter into the November 2010 Dorothy Deed without their knowledge and consent; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, because he had actual knowledge of Dorothy's lack of authority to grant the November 2010 Dorothy Deed, Plaintiff was not entitled to rely on Article 5 of the Trust [Note 21] to relieve him of his duty to inquire as to Dorothy's actual authority to grant the November 2010 Dorothy Deed; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Sandra Brown Chain of Title is invalid and that Plaintiff does not hold valid title to the Disputed Property; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Moreland Deed was effective to convey valid title to the Disputed Property to Moreland and that Moreland thus holds valid record title to the Disputed Property; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Moreland holds valid title to the Disputed Property, free and clear of all claims of Plaintiff, Williams, Sandra, the Beneficiaries, Dorothy, the Trust, Fitzhur, and Hutson; and,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, upon payment of all required fees, a certified or attested copy of this Judgment may be recorded in the Registry and marginally referenced on all relevant documents.

SO ORDERED.