Matteson v. Walsh
2011 Mass. App. LEXIS 647, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 402, 947 N.E.2d 44 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A life tenant commits actionable waste by failing to pay property taxes to the point of a tax taking or by failing to maintain the property, resulting in its substantial deterioration. Such waste can lead to forfeiture of the life estate and liability for damages.
Facts:
- Dorothy G. Walsh devised a property to her son, Robert L. Walsh, as a life tenant, with the remainder interest to be divided among his heirs and his two sisters, Elizabeth Gay Matteson and Catherine T. Baisly.
- After inheriting the life tenancy in 1987, Walsh lived on the property and collected all rents from two rental units located there.
- Beginning in 2004, Walsh stopped paying property taxes and water bills on the property.
- As a result of the nonpayment, the town of Chatham issued a notice of tax taking in 2005.
- Walsh also failed to maintain the three buildings on the property, allowing them to fall into significant disrepair, including structural rot and parts being open to the weather.
- Matteson paid the delinquent taxes (approximately $13,000 for three years) to prevent foreclosure by the town.
- Matteson also paid for extensive repairs to the property to correct the substantial deterioration, of which about $53,000 was deemed necessary for structural repairs.
- Walsh was aware of the repairs being made by Matteson and did not object or offer to reimburse her.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth Gay Matteson sued Robert L. Walsh in Massachusetts Superior Court, seeking damages for waste.
- Following a bench trial, the trial judge found that Walsh had committed waste.
- The trial court awarded Matteson approximately $65,000 in damages, terminated Walsh's life estate, and ordered that title be held by Matteson, Walsh, and their sister as tenants in common.
- Both Matteson (as cross-appellant) and Walsh (as appellant) appealed the judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a life tenant's failure to pay property taxes, resulting in a notice of tax taking, and failure to perform necessary maintenance, resulting in substantial deterioration of the property, constitute actionable waste?
Opinions:
Majority - Fecteau, J.
Yes. A life tenant commits waste by failing to pay property taxes to the point of a tax taking and by allowing substantial deterioration of the property through neglect. The court reasoned that a life tenant has a higher duty than a tenant at will to preserve the estate for the benefit of the remaindermen. Allowing taxes to go unpaid to the point where the taxing authority records a tax taking constitutes waste because it creates a threat to the remainder interest and prejudices the inheritance, even if the property is not ultimately sold. Similarly, allowing severe and substantial deterioration to occur through neglect is a breach of the life tenant's duty and constitutes actionable waste. The court also held that the trial court erred in granting the life tenant a remainder interest after his life estate was terminated; the property should instead pass immediately to the specified remaindermen, with the class of 'heirs' determined at the time the life estate is terminated by court order, not at the life tenant's future death.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant duties imposed on a life tenant to preserve the property for the remaindermen. It clarifies that 'permissive waste' (waste by omission or neglect) is actionable against a life tenant when it results in substantial injury, distinguishing it from the lesser duty of a tenant at will. The ruling establishes that the mere threat to the remainder interest, such as a recorded tax taking, is sufficient to constitute waste without requiring an actual sale of the property. Furthermore, the court's interpretation of G. L. c. 184, § 6A, accelerates the vesting of remainder interests in cases of forfeiture, providing that a class of heirs is determined at the time of the terminating event (the court judgment) rather than the natural end of the life estate.
