[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1180
JOSEPH D. FORD, JR., AND DEBORAH FORD,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
JOSEPH D. FORD AND CME ASSOCIATES, INC.,
AS IT IS THE GENERAL PARTNER OF CME GROUP, LTD.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
E. James Veara with whom Sarah A. Turano-Flores and Zisson &
Veara were on brief for appellants.
Judith G. Dein, with whom James J. Arguin, Warner & Stackpole.
LLP
and Christopher Nolland were on brief for appellee.
November 7, 1996
Per Curiam. Upon careful consideration of the
arguments, the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment
of the district court for essentially the reasons set out in
the district court's opinion.
Appellants argue that the district court erred by
refusing to impose a constructive trust based on the theory
of unjust enrichment. They also insist that Joseph D. Ford,
Jr.'s wife, Deborah, has presented proof of her own equitable
ownership of the contested premises sufficient to undercut
the legal effect of her husband's individual quitclaim
conveyance. The lower court, however, grasped the
appellants' basic contentions and ruled correctly as to each.
We see no viable theory under which Joseph D. Ford, Jr. and
Deborah Ford can successfully claim an equitable interest in
the property, however labeled, especially against CME, a
creditor of Joseph D. Ford, Sr. and a mortgagee that was not
privy to any alleged private understandings between the
junior and senior Fords.
Joseph D. Ford, Jr. deeded the property back to his
father as part of a comprehensive settlement by quitclaim
deed which, under Massachusetts law, conveys all right, title
and interest in property. Fales v. Glass, 9 Mass. App. Ct.
570, 573-74, 402 N.E. 2d 1100, 1102-03 (1980). Nothing in
the Stipulation Agreement, including the Fords' general
reservation of rights, gave Joseph D. Ford, Jr. a right to
-2-
repudiate the deed which it authorized him to record. Had
Ford, Jr. wished to preserve a right to pursue his present
claims, he should have made express provision to do so
instead of deeding all his interest back to his father.
There is, moreover, as the district court stated,
insufficient evidence to support Deborah Ford's claim that
she acquired an equitable interest in the property such as
would permit her to repudiate her husband's quitclaim deed
and overturn CME's mortgage interest. Her marriage to Ford,
by itself, did not suffice.
Affirmed.
-3-