Opinion
14-P-101
12-18-2014
ROBIN PANZER v. WILLIAM SOKOLOW.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Upon review of the briefs, record appendix, and transcript and after oral argument, we conclude that this matter needs to be remanded, as we discern an error of law.
The trial judge opined, among other things, "that since the [trust] documents relied on by the Wife were never recorded, the Husband never had any ownership or beneficial interest in the property." The judge's reasoning is flawed. See Solans v. McMenimen, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 178, 181 (2011). Failure to record did not impair the underlying transfer of title to the property. See ibid. "[I]nterests in real property are legally and effectively transferred by delivery of a deed or other document of conveyance, even if the document is not recorded." Ibid. (citation omitted).
Given that that finding was insinuated into the judge's ruling, we cannot confidently conclude that the outcome as to the noted property (the marital home) would be the same.
Accordingly, the amended judgment is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.
The husband's request for reasonable appellate attorney's fees and double costs is denied.
So ordered.
By the Court (Rubin, Brown & Sullivan, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: December 18, 2014.