NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-941
SARAH MINDEN
vs.
STEPHEN WRIGHT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a bench trial in the Superior Court, the plaintiff
prevailed on her claim of unjust enrichment, and judgment
entered in her favor. The defendant appeals, challenging
certain aspects of the judge's decision as clearly erroneous.
We affirm.
Background. We summarize the judge's factual findings.
The parties were involved in a long-term relationship from
approximately 2005 to 2020. In 2007 the defendant moved into
the plaintiff's home in West Roxbury. At the time the defendant
was not working, and he told the plaintiff that he did not have
much money. As a result the parties initially agreed that the
defendant could live in the plaintiff's home without paying rent or living expenses and that, in exchange, he would help her with
chores, driving, and other responsibilities.
Years before the defendant moved in, the plaintiff had
employed people to oversee her bank accounts and credit card
accounts because she was too busy with work to handle her
finances by herself. Soon after the defendant moved in, he
agreed to take over this role. To facilitate this, the
plaintiff added the defendant's name to her Brookline Bank
account (account) with the expectation that he would pay her
expenses and the parties' joint expenses from the account. The
defendant never asked the plaintiff if he could use the account
to pay for his own personal expenses, and the plaintiff never
authorized the defendant to do so. The plaintiff had had the
account since 1978, and she deposited all of her earnings into
it.
Several years later, when the plaintiff reviewed her
financial statements from 2012 and 2013, she discovered that the
expenses she had paid were "enormous" compared to what they were
before the defendant moved into her house. This discovery
prompted her to have a conversation with the defendant in 2014.
By this time the defendant was working, and the plaintiff told
him that he needed to pay one-half of their joint expenses going
forward. The defendant agreed. He then sent the plaintiff an
email message itemizing their individual and joint expenses, and
2 they discussed which items were his alone to pay. The defendant
also included in the email message a list of "MONEY CONTRIBUTED"
by him, totaling approximately 470,000 to 500,000 Canadian
dollars, which the plaintiff understood to represent the amount
of money he had deposited into the account over the years. The
plaintiff trusted the defendant and believed he had contributed
this money. Although the parties did not specifically discuss
how the defendant would pay his share of their joint expenses
going forward, the plaintiff assumed he would pay it in lump
sums, based in part on his claim of previous contributions to
the account.
In 2020 the defendant moved out of the plaintiff's home,
and the plaintiff took back responsibility for her finances.
Upon reviewing her financial statements, the plaintiff
discovered that the defendant had used the account to pay for
his personal expenses, including his long-term care insurance,
medical bills, plane tickets, and credit card bills. The
plaintiff also discovered that the defendant had contributed
"nothing ever" into the account. The plaintiff put together her
financial statements and sent the defendant an email message
asking to discuss them. The defendant replied, "No."
In 2022 the plaintiff filed the underlying complaint
raising five claims, including unjust enrichment. At trial the
defendant introduced financial statements, which revealed that
3 his assets had appreciated from approximately $500,000 to
approximately $1.5 million while he was living with the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was not previously aware that the
defendant had $1.5 million in assets.
After three days of testimony, the judge found for the
plaintiff on her unjust enrichment claim and awarded her
restitution in the amount of $137,516.41. 1 This award consisted
of (a) the personal expenses that the defendant had charged to
the account and the plaintiff's credit cards from 2016 through
2020, and (b) one-half of the parties' joint expenses from 2016
through 2020. 2 After the addition of prejudgment interest and
costs, judgment entered for the plaintiff in the total amount of
$185,980.10.
Discussion. In an appeal from a judgment entered after a
bench trial, we review the judge's conclusions of law de novo,
but we must accept the judge's findings of fact unless clearly
erroneous. See Cavadi v. DeYeso, 458 Mass. 615, 624 (2011). A
finding is clearly erroneous only if "the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed." Demoulas v. Demoulas Super
1 The judge found for the defendant on the plaintiff's remaining claims. Those claims are not at issue on appeal.
2 The plaintiff did not present evidence about, or seek restitution for, expenses incurred before 2016.
4 Mkts. Inc., 424 Mass. 501, 509 (1997), quoting Building
Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157, 160 (1977).
In our review we must give due regard to the judge's assessment
of the credibility of the witnesses and weighing of the
evidence. See Demoulas, supra at 509-510. Thus, "[s]o long as
the judge's account is plausible in light of the entire record,
an appellate court should decline to reverse it." Id. at 510.
"Unjust enrichment occurs when a party retains the property
of another 'against the fundamental principles of justice or
equity and good conscience.'" Bonina v. Sheppard, 91 Mass. App.
Ct. 622, 625 (2017), quoting Santagate v. Tower, 64 Mass. App.
Ct. 324, 329 (2005). To prevail on a claim of unjust
enrichment, "the plaintiff must establish 'not only that the
defendant received a benefit, but also that such a benefit was
unjust,'" which "turns on the reasonable expectations of the
parties." Bonina, supra, quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Cotter, 464 Mass. 623, 644 (2013). Here, the defendant argues
that the judge's findings about the parties' reasonable
expectations were clearly erroneous in two respects. Neither
argument persuades us.
First, the defendant maintains that the plaintiff had no
expectation that the money in the account would remain only hers
to use because she added the defendant to the account in 2008 so
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-941
SARAH MINDEN
vs.
STEPHEN WRIGHT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a bench trial in the Superior Court, the plaintiff
prevailed on her claim of unjust enrichment, and judgment
entered in her favor. The defendant appeals, challenging
certain aspects of the judge's decision as clearly erroneous.
We affirm.
Background. We summarize the judge's factual findings.
The parties were involved in a long-term relationship from
approximately 2005 to 2020. In 2007 the defendant moved into
the plaintiff's home in West Roxbury. At the time the defendant
was not working, and he told the plaintiff that he did not have
much money. As a result the parties initially agreed that the
defendant could live in the plaintiff's home without paying rent or living expenses and that, in exchange, he would help her with
chores, driving, and other responsibilities.
Years before the defendant moved in, the plaintiff had
employed people to oversee her bank accounts and credit card
accounts because she was too busy with work to handle her
finances by herself. Soon after the defendant moved in, he
agreed to take over this role. To facilitate this, the
plaintiff added the defendant's name to her Brookline Bank
account (account) with the expectation that he would pay her
expenses and the parties' joint expenses from the account. The
defendant never asked the plaintiff if he could use the account
to pay for his own personal expenses, and the plaintiff never
authorized the defendant to do so. The plaintiff had had the
account since 1978, and she deposited all of her earnings into
it.
Several years later, when the plaintiff reviewed her
financial statements from 2012 and 2013, she discovered that the
expenses she had paid were "enormous" compared to what they were
before the defendant moved into her house. This discovery
prompted her to have a conversation with the defendant in 2014.
By this time the defendant was working, and the plaintiff told
him that he needed to pay one-half of their joint expenses going
forward. The defendant agreed. He then sent the plaintiff an
email message itemizing their individual and joint expenses, and
2 they discussed which items were his alone to pay. The defendant
also included in the email message a list of "MONEY CONTRIBUTED"
by him, totaling approximately 470,000 to 500,000 Canadian
dollars, which the plaintiff understood to represent the amount
of money he had deposited into the account over the years. The
plaintiff trusted the defendant and believed he had contributed
this money. Although the parties did not specifically discuss
how the defendant would pay his share of their joint expenses
going forward, the plaintiff assumed he would pay it in lump
sums, based in part on his claim of previous contributions to
the account.
In 2020 the defendant moved out of the plaintiff's home,
and the plaintiff took back responsibility for her finances.
Upon reviewing her financial statements, the plaintiff
discovered that the defendant had used the account to pay for
his personal expenses, including his long-term care insurance,
medical bills, plane tickets, and credit card bills. The
plaintiff also discovered that the defendant had contributed
"nothing ever" into the account. The plaintiff put together her
financial statements and sent the defendant an email message
asking to discuss them. The defendant replied, "No."
In 2022 the plaintiff filed the underlying complaint
raising five claims, including unjust enrichment. At trial the
defendant introduced financial statements, which revealed that
3 his assets had appreciated from approximately $500,000 to
approximately $1.5 million while he was living with the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was not previously aware that the
defendant had $1.5 million in assets.
After three days of testimony, the judge found for the
plaintiff on her unjust enrichment claim and awarded her
restitution in the amount of $137,516.41. 1 This award consisted
of (a) the personal expenses that the defendant had charged to
the account and the plaintiff's credit cards from 2016 through
2020, and (b) one-half of the parties' joint expenses from 2016
through 2020. 2 After the addition of prejudgment interest and
costs, judgment entered for the plaintiff in the total amount of
$185,980.10.
Discussion. In an appeal from a judgment entered after a
bench trial, we review the judge's conclusions of law de novo,
but we must accept the judge's findings of fact unless clearly
erroneous. See Cavadi v. DeYeso, 458 Mass. 615, 624 (2011). A
finding is clearly erroneous only if "the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed." Demoulas v. Demoulas Super
1 The judge found for the defendant on the plaintiff's remaining claims. Those claims are not at issue on appeal.
2 The plaintiff did not present evidence about, or seek restitution for, expenses incurred before 2016.
4 Mkts. Inc., 424 Mass. 501, 509 (1997), quoting Building
Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157, 160 (1977).
In our review we must give due regard to the judge's assessment
of the credibility of the witnesses and weighing of the
evidence. See Demoulas, supra at 509-510. Thus, "[s]o long as
the judge's account is plausible in light of the entire record,
an appellate court should decline to reverse it." Id. at 510.
"Unjust enrichment occurs when a party retains the property
of another 'against the fundamental principles of justice or
equity and good conscience.'" Bonina v. Sheppard, 91 Mass. App.
Ct. 622, 625 (2017), quoting Santagate v. Tower, 64 Mass. App.
Ct. 324, 329 (2005). To prevail on a claim of unjust
enrichment, "the plaintiff must establish 'not only that the
defendant received a benefit, but also that such a benefit was
unjust,'" which "turns on the reasonable expectations of the
parties." Bonina, supra, quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Cotter, 464 Mass. 623, 644 (2013). Here, the defendant argues
that the judge's findings about the parties' reasonable
expectations were clearly erroneous in two respects. Neither
argument persuades us.
First, the defendant maintains that the plaintiff had no
expectation that the money in the account would remain only hers
to use because she added the defendant to the account in 2008 so
that the defendant "could use the monies for both personal and
5 shared expenses." We understand the defendant to be arguing
that the judge clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff added
the defendant to the account "for her convenience" and that it
was "clear she never intended to gift him an interest" in the
account. These findings are not clearly erroneous, however, as
the plaintiff testified that her intent was to facilitate the
defendant's handling of her finances, that she did not authorize
him to pay his personal expenses from the account, and that the
parties agreed in 2014 that the defendant would pay his personal
expenses and one-half of their joint expenses going forward.
Unlike in the cases cited by the defendant, the judge heard
directly from the plaintiff about her intent in creating the
joint account. 3 The judge was entitled to credit the plaintiff's
testimony. See Bonina, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 625 (affirming
judgment for plaintiff on unjust enrichment where "judge's
factual findings demonstrate[d] that the substantial
contributions made by the plaintiff to improve the home were not
meant to be gifts to the defendant").
3 All of the cases cited by the defendant involve administration of estates and specifically the question whether the decedent's creation of a joint account was intended to be an inter vivos gift. And even in that context, "although a joint account conclusively establishes the rights as between a joint tenant and the bank, it is always open to the estate of a deceased joint tenant to prove that there was no intention to create a gift to the surviving tenant." Desrosiers v. Germain, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 852, 855-856 (1981).
6 Second, the defendant argues that the plaintiff had no
expectation that the defendant would reimburse her for one-half
of the parties' joint expenses because she agreed that he did
not have to pay his share so long as he named her the main
beneficiary of his estate, which he did in wills executed in
2014 and 2017. As the judge found, however, the defendant
worded his wills such that the plaintiff would be entitled to
benefit from his estate only if the parties were still living
together at the time of his passing. The judge credited the
plaintiff's testimony that she did not know at the time the
defendant executed the wills that they included this condition.
7 Again, it was for the judge to assess the credibility of the
witnesses, and we defer to her determination. See Demoulas, 424
Mass. at 509-510.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Shin, Ditkoff & Tan, JJ. 4),
Clerk
Entered: June 15, 2026.
4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.