PIERA FICO, TRUSTEE OF MISSION REALTY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. GAETANO COLOMBA, Defendant

This is an action for declaratory judgment and to quiet title to the property at 59 and 59A Walnut Street in Fitchburg (the "Property"), owned as a matter of record title by the plaintiff, Piera Fico, Trustee of Mission Realty Trust, and by Rosaria Colomba, Trustee of Mission Realty Trust. Ms. Fico's brother, Gaetano Colomba, registered a document with the Worcester County North Registry District of the Land Court (the "Registry District") purporting to state an adverse claim to the Property. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the claims in the registered statement of adverse claim are void and that they should be stricken.

After an initial hearing before the court, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint. The plaintiff then filed a motion to strike many paragraphs of the answer as not in compliance with Rule 9, Mass. R. Civ. P., and also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment simultaneously. On January 5, 2021, the day of the scheduled hearing, the defendant filed voluminous material purporting to be in opposition to the pending motions. The court allowed the late filing of this material, but notes that aside from the late filing, it did not comply with the requirements of Land Court Rule 4 as, among other reasons, the late-filed material did not address the statement of material facts filed by the plaintiff in accordance with Rule 4. Accordingly, the facts stated in the plaintiff's statement of material facts are deemed admitted. The defendant also filed additional material days after the hearing without leave of the court. This material is not considered, but the court notes that this material also appears not to address any issues material to this dispute.

Following the hearing on January 5, 2021, the court allowed the plaintiff's motion to strike answers to the amended complaint, and deemed the stricken answers to be denials. The court took no action on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, as it was duplicative of the motion for summary judgment, and took the motion for summary judgment under advisement. This decision is addressed to the motion for summary judgment.

FACTS

The material undisputed facts pertinent to this motion for summary judgment, established by the plaintiff's statement of material facts, and which are deemed admitted by the defendant's failure to file a response as required by Land Court Rule 4, and facts of which the court takes judicial notice as they are matters of record with respect to documents registered pursuant to the Land Court Registration system in accordance with G. L. c. 185, are as follows:

1. Rosaria Colomba and Piera Fico, Trustees of Mission Realty Trust, u/d/t dated February 24, 2014, and registered with the Registry District on July 28, 2014, and as noted on Certificate of Title No. 1873, became the owners of the Property pursuant to a deed from Rosaria Colomba dated February 24, 2014, and registered with the Registry District on July 28, 2014, also noted on Certificate of Title No. 1873.

2. The ownership of the Property by Rosaria Colomba and Piera Fico, Trustees of Mission Realty Trust, is reflected and recognized on Transfer Certificate of Title No 1882, Document No. 11,021, as registered with the Registry District.

3. The plaintiffs also claim that on August 24, 2017, Mission Realty Trust was amended to remove Rosaria Colomba as Trustee, leaving Piera Fico as the sole Trustee. [Note 1]

4. On February 27, 2020, the defendant Gaetano Colomba, brother of Piera Fico and son of Rosaria Colomba, filed with the Registry District a document entitled "Notice of Adverse Claim" with respect to the Property. The Notice of Adverse Claim is noted on the Memorandum of Encumbrances for Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1882 for the Property.

5. In the Notice of Adverse Claim, Mr. Colomba asserts that he is the sole beneficiary of Mission Realty Trust. [Note 2] Mr. Colomba also asserts in the Notice of Adverse Claim that the plaintiff, Ms. Fico, in her position as Trustee, has breached and is attempting to further breach her fiduciary duties to him as a beneficiary of Mission Realty Trust.

DISCUSSION

"Summary judgment is granted where there are no issues of genuine material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ng Bros. Constr. v. Cranney, 436 Mass. 638 , 643-644 (2002); Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). "The moving party bears the burden of affirmatively showing that there is no triable issue of fact." Ng Bros. Constr. v. Cranney, supra, 436 Mass. at 644. In determining whether genuine issues of fact exist, the court must draw all inferences from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 386 Mass. 367 , 371 (1982). Whether a fact is material or not is determined by the substantive law, and "an adverse party may not manufacture disputes by conclusory factual assertions." See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Ng Bros. Constr. v. Cranney, supra, 436 Mass. at 648. When appropriate, summary judgment may be entered against the moving party and may be limited to certain issues. Community Nat'l Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550 , 553 (1976); Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c).

The parties bring an unfortunate history of years of family dispute to the present action, including a summary process action filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for his occupation of the Property, and disputes involving the city of Fitchburg concerning the defendant's occupation and use of the Property. None of these prior or pending disputes are relevant to the resolution of this case. The Land Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its jurisdiction is generally restricted to resolving disputes concerning a "right, title or interest" in land. See G. L. c. 185, § 1. The Land Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve, and does not resolve, disputes between beneficiaries and trustees over the disposition of trust assets. However, the present case involves a dispute over a notice of adverse claim, which is noted on the memorandum of encumbrances of a certificate of title for a parcel of land registered pursuant to G. L. c. 185. The Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning claims involving title to registered land. G. L. c. 185, § 1(a1/2); see also Johnson v. Christ Apostle Church, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 699 (2019). Accordingly, to the extent the Notice of Adverse Claim purports to make a claim to affect the title to the Property, the Land Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the notice presents a valid claim affecting title. G. L. c. 185, § 112 provides that after the registration of such a notice of adverse claim, upon the motion of any party in interest, the court shall hear the dispute and "shall enter such judgment thereon as justice and equity may require. If the claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration [of the notice of adverse claim] shall be cancelled."

The Mission Realty Trust is a nominee trust, in which legal title to the Property held by the trust is held by the trustee or trustees, for the benefit of the beneficiaries. See Morrison v. Lennett, 415 Mass. 857 (1993). Although the trustee's right to act with respect to the trust property is limited to the direction given by the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries' identity in such a trust is generally undisclosed, is not ordinarily a matter of record title, and the legal title, although it may be bare legal title, is held by the trustee, and not by the beneficiaries. Id. at 860. A beneficiary holds an equitable interest, but not a legal ownership in real property. Assistant Recorder of North Registry District of Bristol County v. Spinelli, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 655 , 658-659 (1995).

On the undisputed facts in this case, Piera Fico is a trustee of Mission Realty Trust. Also on the undisputed facts of the case, Gaetano Colomba is not a trustee. Although he claims to be a beneficiary of the Trust, he has no claim to the legal title to the Property; he claims only an equitable interest. His Notice of Adverse Claim neither discloses nor claims legal title to the Property, and in fact acknowledges that Ms. Fico is the trustee of the Trust. That he claims she has violated her fiduciary duties to a beneficiary of the Trust is not a claim affecting a "right, title or interest" in the land within the meaning of G. L c. 185, § 1. That he claims to be a beneficiary of the Trust is also not a claim affecting a "right, title or interest" in the land within the meaning of G. L. c. 185, § 1.

Accordingly, the Notice of Adverse Claim registered with the Registry District does not state a valid adverse claim against the legal title to the Property.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED. An appropriate judgment is to enter cancelling the Notice of Adverse Claim and striking it from the memorandum of encumbrances for the Property.

Judgment will enter in accordance with this Decision.