explaining that Massachusetts’s preclusion rules are narrower than those imposed by federal law
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Massachusetts’s preclusion rules are narrower than those imposed by federal law
- “Since [defendant] played no role directly or vicariously in the [prior litigation], we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to claim a benefit from the judgment in that case.”
- “Implied trustees ... do not fit plausibly in a representative capacity. Theirs is not a position of fiduciary responsibility. The customarily applicable word of ‘imposing’ a constructive trust or resulting trust signals the remedial nature of the concepts.”
- “There would be something anomalous about giving a defendant the benefit of claim preclusion when that defendant took steps calculated to assure the exclusion of the claim from the prior litigation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brown, J.
(concurring). I have no quarrel with the careful and erudite analysis of the majority. I, however, would reach the same result relying merely on one of the grounds put forward by the majority. A. court of equity faced with allegations as serious as those made by the plaintiff may not stand by blindly and allow a party “the benefit of claim preclusion when that *313 [party] took steps calculated to assure the exclusion of the claim from the prior litigation.” Legal doctrines and procedural niceties should never be allowed to shield chicanery or prevent fair and commonsense solutions to clear cases. Cf. Demeter v. Demeter, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 860 (1980).