Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and the two defendants in this case were Roman Catholic priests. In 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendants published, in the parish where Defendant was serving, a false and defamatory stalking accusation against Plaintiff. Plaintiff knew that Defendants published the stalking accusation in 2005, but Defendant did not discover until 2007 that Defendants had fabricated the defamatory accusation. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the three-year statute of limitations barred Plaintiff’s claim and that the discovery rule did not toll the limitations period. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that, under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations should be tolled because, until 2007, Plaintiff reasonably could have believed that Defendants were permitted or privileged to repeat the defamatory statement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint, holding (1) under the discovery rule, knowledge of the identity of the defendant is necessary for a cause of action to accrue; and (2) because Plaintiff knew in 2005 that Defendants were the publishers of the defamatory stalking accusation, Plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed.View "Harrington v. Costello" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing or concealing stolen paintings. The victim of the theft (Plaintiff) filed a civil suit against Defendant for, among other claims, violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) due to Defendant’s transfers of assets to his family members following the discovery of his identity as the holder of the stolen paintings. Plaintiff also brought claims for relief under the UFTA against Defendant’s family members alleged to have received the fraudulent transfers. A jury found Defendant had made seven fraudulent transfers within the meaning of the UFTA, entering judgment against Defendant for more than $4.3 million. Additionally, the judge ordered equitable remedies against the relief defendants for the purposes of identifying specific assets that had been fraudulently conveyed and could be subject to reconveyance in satisfaction of the judgment against Defendant. Lastly, the judge dismissed the claim against one of the relief defendants concerning assets in a shared trust because the funds in the trust had been dissipated. Defendant appealed, arguing that money judgments should have been ordered against the relief defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment except in respect to a savings account and the shared trust. Remanded.View "Bakwin v. Mardirosian" on Justia Law