Ford v. Ford ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]







                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



        No. 96-1180



                        JOSEPH D. FORD, JR., AND DEBORAH FORD,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                       JOSEPH D. FORD AND CME ASSOCIATES, INC.,

                   AS IT IS THE GENERAL PARTNER OF CME GROUP, LTD.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________



                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________



                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            E. James Veara with whom Sarah A. Turano-Flores and Zisson &
______________           ______________________     ________

        Veara were on brief for appellants.
_____

            Judith G. Dein, with whom James J. Arguin, Warner & Stackpole.
______________            _______________  ___________________

        LLP
___

        and Christopher Nolland were on brief for appellee.
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                   November 7, 1996

                                 ____________________











































                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful consideration of the
__________



            arguments, the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment



            of the district court for essentially the reasons set out in



            the district court's opinion.



                      Appellants argue that the district court erred by



            refusing to impose a constructive trust based on the theory



            of unjust enrichment.  They also insist that Joseph D. Ford,



            Jr.'s wife, Deborah, has presented proof of her own equitable



            ownership of the contested premises sufficient to undercut



            the legal effect of her husband's individual quitclaim



            conveyance.  The lower court, however, grasped the



            appellants' basic contentions and ruled correctly as to each.



            We see no viable theory under which Joseph D. Ford, Jr. and



            Deborah Ford can successfully claim an equitable interest in



            the property, however labeled, especially against CME, a



            creditor of Joseph D. Ford, Sr. and a mortgagee that was not



            privy to any alleged private understandings between the



            junior and senior Fords.



                      Joseph D. Ford, Jr. deeded the property back to his



            father as part of a comprehensive settlement by quitclaim



            deed which, under Massachusetts law, conveys all right, title



            and interest in property.  Fales v. Glass, 9 Mass. App. Ct.
_____    _____



            570, 573-74, 402 N.E.2d 1100, 1102-03 (1980).  Nothing in



            the Stipulation Agreement, including the Fords' general



            reservation of rights, gave Joseph D. Ford, Jr. a right to







                                         -2-



























            repudiate the deed which it authorized him to record.  Had



            Ford, Jr. wished  to preserve a right to pursue his present



            claims, he should have made express provision to do so



            instead of deeding all his interest back to his father.



            There is, moreover, as the district court stated,



            insufficient evidence to support Deborah Ford's claim that



            she acquired an equitable interest in the property such as



            would permit her to repudiate her husband's quitclaim deed



            and overturn CME's mortgage interest.  Her marriage to Ford,



            by itself, did not suffice.



                      Affirmed.
________































































                                         -3-