Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bongaards v. Millen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided August 12, 2003Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGreaney, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom Spina, J., joins). I agree with the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff cannot recover in this case on the theories argued. I favor adopting, however, the principles expressed in § 9.1(c) of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers (2003), to govern assets held by a decedent in a trust with terms like this trust, which permit the decedent to control the trust assets entirely for his or her sole benefit, whether those assets were placed in the trust by the deceased spouse or by a third person.1 I would do so…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. BurkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  2. BankBoston v. MarlowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
  3. Putnam v. PutnamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  4. Flannery v. McNamaraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  5. Bongaards v. MillenMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API