LAW.coLAW.co

Abbie L. Fairbanks vs. Guy Newhall

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1916-02-10
222 Mass. 598

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the final decree dismissing the plaintiff's bill to cancel the mortgage and enjoin foreclosure, holding that the master's findings in support of the mortgage's validity should be confirmed and the plaintiff's exceptions overruled.

Jane Fairbanks, an adjudicated incompetent person, had her guardian execute a mortgage on her real estate to secure the guardian's personal debts. The mortgage was authorized by the Probate Court and was executed without fraud. After Jane died intestate, her sole heir, Abbie Fairbanks, sought to enjoin foreclosure and cancel the mortgage. A master found facts supporting the validity of the mortgage and the defendant's right to foreclose, and the trial judge overruled the plaintiff's exceptions to the master's report.

The plaintiff challenged the proceedings through various post-judgment motions, but these could not be granted because a final decree in equity closes the case except through appeal or bill of review. The court affirmed the master's findings, noting that the plaintiff's exceptions were either argumentative or relied on evidence not properly presented in the record.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether a guardian's mortgage on a ward's property, authorized by Probate Court, may be enjoined after the ward's death
  • Effect of failure to report evidence when exceptions to a master's report are raised
  • Finality of equity decrees and limits on post-judgment relief

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed from a final decree dismissing her bill in equity seeking to cancel a mortgage on her deceased ward's estate and enjoin foreclosure, after a master's report and trial court confirmation of the report.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

De Courcy, J.

The master has found the following facts: By virtue of a license granted by the Probate Court, William B. Orcutt, as guardian of Jane Fairbanks, an insane person, gave a mortgage upon certain real estate of his ward for $700, in payment of divers items for which he was indebted or obliged to the defendant. There was no fraud or deceit on the part of either party to the mortgage. When the defendant as mortgagee began foreclosure proceedings there were breaches in the condition of the mortgage due to unpaid principal, interest and taxes.

Jane Fairbanks died on October 10, 1914, intestate, and the plaintiff, her only heir at law, brought this bill to restrain the defendant from foreclosing the mortgage, and for its cancellation and an accounting. The allegations, so far as relevant to this bill in equity, are disposed of adversely to the plaintiff by the findings of the master. Whether other complaints set out in her bill will be open to her in the hearing on the guardian’s account in the Probate Court, or in some other proceeding, is not now before us.

Although the present record, apparently prepared by the plaintiff herself, is incomplete in some respects, it does not seem necessary to remit the case to the Superior Court for correction. For instance, it is not stated expressly that the exceptions to the master’s report were overruled, or that the motion to recommit was denied; but it reasonably must be assumed from the subsequent entry of the final decree that those preliminary matters were disposed of adversely to the plaintiff. See Parsons v. Henry, 197 Mass. 504. The plaintiff requested the judge to “report the material facts,” under R. L. c. 159, § 23; but that statute was not applicable, as no facts were found by the judge. The hearing before him was only on exceptions to the master’s report. Her motions, made after the entry of the-final decree, that the trial judge vacate the decrees and recommit the case, could not be granted. It is an established principle that “after the entry of a final decree in equity, as after the entry of a final judgment in a suit at law, the case is finally disposed of by the court, subject to such rights of appeal, if any, as the statute gives, and the court has no further power to deal with the case except upon a bill of review.” White v. Gove, 183 Mass. 333, 340.

A. L. Fairbanks, pro se.

W. E. Dorman, for the defendant.

The reference to the master without objection by the defendant operated as a waiver of the defendant’s demurrer. Attorney General v. Onset Bay Grove Association, 221 Mass. 342.

The exceptions to the master’s report, so far as relevant to the issues, are either mere arguments or are based on alleged facts which are not before us, the evidence not being reported. They must be overruled and the report of the master, confirmed. Cook v. Scheffreen, 215 Mass. 444.

The final decree dismissing the bill is affirmed.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on briefs.

The record was typewritten.

Quinn, J.