Darling v. Pinkham

Annie B. Darling, conservatrix v. Paula A. Pinkham

Darling v. Pinkham, 402 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)

Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 1, 1980
Citations: 402 N.E.2d 1159 Mass. App. Ct. 8851980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1091

Cited by 3 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The plaintiff was appointed conservatrix by a Connecticut court. She brought a petition for partition of the ward’s real estate in the Probate *886 Court for Barnstable County. The ward was a joint tenant of the real estate with the defendant. The court entered an “interlocutory decree” ordering partition from which the defendant appeals. G. L. c. 241, § 10. Asker v. Asker, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 634, 635 (1979).

Harry Sarkis Terkanian for the defendant. William A. Doherty, Jr., for the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff as conservatrix had standing to bring an action for partition. There is no merit to the defendant’s argument under G. L. c. 201, § 39. The property belongs to the ward. Title is not in the con-servatrix. As a result, it is the ward who must be taken to have filed the petition for partition. Minnehan v. Minnehan, 336 Mass. 668, 670 (1958). 2. There was no evidence or representation of counsel that the interest of the conservatrix was adverse to that of the ward, and hence there was no need for appointment of a guardian ad litem. Contrast Minnehan v. Minnehan , 336 Mass, at 671. 3. The defendant will not now be heard to complain that the court denied her an evidentiary hearing, because she was content to submit the matter to the court on representations and arguments of counsel on two different occasions. Mede v. Colbert, 342 Mass. 166, 167 (1961). 4. We will not consider the defendant’s claim that the holder of an easement was not named in the petition. This claim is made for the first time on appeal. Royal Indent. Co. v. Blakely, 372 Mass. 86, 88 (1977).

Decree affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(court need not appoint guardian ad litem for ward under conservatorship in petition to partition action where his interests were not adverse to the conservator’s)

Gershaw v. Gershfield, 751 N.E.2d 424 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts3

Relies on it most ⓘ

Palmer v. Murphy677 N.E.2d 247 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)
Gershaw v. Gershfield751 N.E.2d 424 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)
Commissioner of Revenue v. Boback427 N.E.2d 1173 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)

Most recent

Gershaw v. Gershfield751 N.E.2d 424 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)
Palmer v. Murphy677 N.E.2d 247 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)
Commissioner of Revenue v. Boback427 N.E.2d 1173 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Minnehan v. Minnehan, 147 N.E.2d 533 (Mass. 1958)	17
	Royal Indem. Co. v. Blakely, 360 N.E.2d 864 (Mass. 1977)	112
	Asker v. Asker, 396 N.E.2d 704 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)	19
	Mede v. Colbert, 172 N.E.2d 700 (Mass. 1961)	8

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list