Real property – Limitations – Resulting trust

Listen to this article

Where two plaintiffs have requested a declaration that they are co-owners of the defendant’s real property by operation of either a constructive trust or a resulting trust, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, as the plaintiffs’ causes of action accrued in 2015.

“This is a family dispute concerning title to the property at 162 Winter Street in Wrentham (the ‘Property’). Defendant, Robert Thompson, has owned the Property for decades and currently lives there. The Plaintiffs, Micah Thompson and Irene Thompson, the son and daughter-in-law of Robert, also live at the Property but do not hold an ownership interest in it. More recently, after an argument between the parties, Robert demanded that Micah and Irene move out. Micah and Irene refused and subsequently filed this action asking the court to declare that they are co-owners of the Property by operation of either a constructive trust or a resulting trust. …

“Robert advances five different arguments in support of summary judgment. At oral argument, he focused on the defense that all of Micah and Irene’s claims, however characterized, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Because that defense is dispositive, this decision will not address Robert’s remaining arguments. …

“Based on the record, Micah and Irene had knowledge that Robert had lied to them about the Property in 2015 and that knowledge triggered their claim for fraud. They, then, had three years to bring the claim, which they failed to do. Consequently, the statute of limitations lapsed in 2018 and, as a result, their fraud claim is time-barred. Count I must be dismissed. …

“… Micah and Irene learned of Robert’s allegedly wrongful conduct in 2015. As of that date, they knew or, with reasonable inquiry, should have known, that Robert did not intend to convey all or part of his interest in the Property to them and they were obligated to bring a claim within three years. They failed to do so and, thus, their claim for undue influence is time-barred. Count II must be dismissed. …

“… The statute of limitations for unjust enrichment mandates that they assert their claim by a date within six years of 2015. They did not commence this action until 2024. Thus, their claim for unjust enrichment is also time-barred. Count III must be dismissed. …

“Finally, Micah and Irene request that the court impose a resulting trust over Nancy’s prior interest in the Property on the grounds that they furnished the purchase price for that interest by reimbursing Robert for his payments under the Bank of America Mortgage. …

“Regardless, even if the court assumes that Micah and Irene could prove their claim for a resulting trust, they knew or should have known that Robert did not intend to convey Nancy’s former interest to them by 2015. Once they knew or should have known that Robert was not going convey an interest in the Property to them, they had six years to bring their claim. Stapleton v. Macchi, 401 Mass. 725, 729 (1988). They did not commence this action until 2024. Therefore, like the other claims, their claim in Count IV is time-barred. Count IV must be dismissed.”

Thompson, et al. v. Thompson (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-046-25) (15 pages) (Smith, J.) (Norfolk Land Court) (Docket No. 24 MISC 000193) (Sept. 10, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.