Manoogian v. Manoogian

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Manoogian v. Manoogian

296 N.E.2d 516, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 825

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMay 21, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 N.E.2d 516 (Manoogian v. Manoogian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manoogian v. Manoogian, 296 N.E.2d 516, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 825 (Mass. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing a bill in equity to set aside a conveyance of real estate by their deceased mother to herself and the defendant as joint tenants. The evidence is reported and there is a report of material facts. The decision turns largely on oral testimony; and the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to determine their credibility than are we from the printed record. His findings must stand unless found to be plainly wrong. Bamum v. Fay, 320 Mass. 177, 180. Jertson v. Hartley, 342 Mass. 597, 601. The bill alleges that the conveyance was contrived by fraud, trick and misrepresentation practiced upon his mother by the defendant. Certain facts, admitted by the defendant pursuant to the plaintiffs demand for admission of facts (G. L. c. 231, § 69, as most recently amended by St. 1946, c. 450), did not preclude a finding by the judge of other facts, which upon review appear to be amply supported by the evidence, and from which he properly concluded that the mother fully understood the nature of the transaction and that the conveyance was her free act and deed.

Final decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The plaintiff appeals from a final decree dismissing a bill in equity to set aside a conveyance of real estate by their deceased mother to herself and the defendant as joint tenants. The evidence is reported and there is a report of material facts. The decision turns largely on oral testimony; and the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to determine their credibility than are we from the printed record. His findings must stand unless found to be plainly wrong. Bamum v. Fay, 320 Mass. 177, 180. Jertson v. Hartley, 342 Mass. 597, 601. The bill alleges that the conveyance was contrived by fraud, trick and misrepresentation practiced upon his mother by the defendant. Certain facts, admitted by the defendant pursuant to the plaintiffs demand for admission of facts (G. L. c. 231, § 69, as most recently amended by St. 1946, c. 450), did not preclude a finding by the judge of other facts, which upon review appear to be amply supported by the evidence, and from which he properly concluded that the mother fully understood the nature of the transaction and that the conveyance was her free act and deed.

Final decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 N.E.2d 516, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manoogian-v-manoogian-massappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack