Ready to print. Press Ctrl+P (⌘+P on Mac), or
CaseSearch
Open CaseSearch appOpen app

In re Plaza Co.

No. 450-55
Decided United States District Court D. Massachusetts
Disposition
affirmed
full scope · unanimous
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
Referee in Bankruptcy
Decided
Judge
WYZANSKI, District Judge
Posture
Referee in Bankruptcy upheld validity of chattel mortgage
Petitioner (1)
Trustee in Bankruptcy
Alan J. Dimond, Boston, Mass., for petitioning creditors
v.
Mortgagee (1)
Clement D’Andria
George J. Shagory, Boston, Mass., for mortgagee
Other parties: Plaza Co., d/b/a Tremont Plaza — Bankrupt

Overview

The petition is denied.

Case summary

This bankruptcy case involves a petition by the Trustee in Bankruptcy for review of a Referee's order upholding the validity of a chattel mortgage claimed by Clement D’Andria on property of the bankrupt Plaza Co. The mortgage was recorded on February 17, 1954, but only stated it was signed in February 1954 without a specific date. The Trustee challenged validity under Mass. G.L. c. 255, § 1, requiring recording within 15 days from the date written in the mortgage. The Referee admitted parol evidence and found the actual execution date was February 15, 1954, making recording timely. The sole issue on review is whether parol evidence is admissible to establish the execution date. The District Court holds that parol evidence is admissible, as it does not contradict the document when silent, and affirms the Referee's order, denying the Trustee's petition.

Abstract

Trustee challenged validity of a chattel mortgage on bankrupt's property due to recording outside the required period from the vague date stated in the document. Referee admitted parol evidence to establish the actual execution date, deeming recording timely. District Court affirmed, holding parol evidence admissible where the document is silent on the specific date, denying the petition.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionWYZANSKI, District Judge
  • Parol evidence admissible to establish date of chattel mortgage execution
  • Does not contradict document when silent on date
  • Massachusetts courts would permit such evidence
  • Reasoning favors allowing extrinsic evidence for statutory compliance

Jurisdiction

not challenged
Subject matter
Bankruptcy matter under federal jurisdiction
Jurisdictional facts
  • Petition for review of an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Referee in Bankruptcy upheld validity of chattel mortgage
Posture on appeal
Petition for review of Referee's order
Preserved issues
  • Admissibility of parol evidence to establish date of execution and delivery of chattel mortgage

Legal categories

BusinessArbitration & Mediation

Case record

Full case name
In the Matter of the Plaza Co., d/b/a Tremont Plaza, Bankrupt.
Docket number
No. 450-55
Court
United States District Court D. Massachusetts
Trial court
Referee in Bankruptcy
Trial court judge
Referee in Bankruptcy
Decided
Opinion author
WYZANSKI, District Judge
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
persuasive
Judges on panel
WYZANSKI, District Judge

Issues & holdings

1
Issues raised
1
affirmed
1
Holdings
Standard of review

Not explicitly stated, but implied de novo review of legal issue

Disposition rationale

Parol evidence admissible; Referee correctly admitted it to show execution date was February 15, making recording timely

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Admissibility of parol evidence to establish date of chattel mortgage execution
Parol evidence is admissible to establish the actual date of execution and delivery of a chattel mortgage under Mass. G.L. c. 255, § 1
Parol evidence does not contradict document when it is silent on date; merely fills in surrounding circumstance to explain timing for statutory compliance; Massachusetts courts would permit such evidence; reasoning favors allowing extrinsic evidence for date establishment
unanimousnon-binding

Error analysis

  • Referee erred in admitting parol evidence to establish date of chattel mortgage execution — evidentiary · no error foundNot applicable as no error found · not applicable

Statutory interpretation

1
Statute
Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed.) chapter 255, § 1
Question
Whether 'date written in the mortgage' precludes parol evidence to establish actual execution date when mortgage is silent or incomplete
Court's reading
Parol evidence admissible to establish actual execution date; statute does not bar such evidence when mortgage does not specify date
Canons applied
Plain meaningPurpose of statute for benefit of creditors

Standards of review

  • Admissibility of parol evidence to establish date of chattel mortgage execution — de novo Legal issue of admissibility reviewed de novo

Timeline

Procedural path

Chattel mortgage executedMortgage deliveredMortgage recordedPetition denied
3
Events
837
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
factual eventcited in opinion

Actual execution and delivery of chattel mortgage from Plaza Co. to Clement D’Andria

Key factual finding by Referee; if true, recording was timely under statute

Admissibility of parol evidence
Plaza Co. · Clement D’Andria
procedural eventcited in opinion

Chattel mortgage recorded in appropriate town records

Recording date; if execution was February 15, recording was within 2 days and timely

Admissibility of parol evidence
Clement D’Andria
rulingcited in opinion

District Court denies Trustee's petition, affirming Referee's order

Outcome: Petition denied

Final disposition affirming admissibility of parol evidence

WYZANSKI, District Judge appellate court

Facts & evidence

Key facts

6 facts
  1. Chattel mortgage claimed by Clement D’Andria on property of bankrupt Plaza Co.
  2. Mortgage recorded on February 17, 1954
  3. Mortgage stated it was signed 'this * * * day of February, 1954' without specific date
  4. Trustee challenged validity, arguing not recorded within 15 days from date written as required by Mass. G.L. c. 255, § 1
  5. Referee admitted parol evidence and found actual execution and delivery date was February 15, 1954 (within 15-day period)
  6. No dispute about factual finding if parol evidence admissible

Procedural history

2 steps
  1. Referee in Bankruptcy upheld validity of mortgage after admitting parol evidence
  2. Trustee petitioned District Court for review of Referee's order

Evidence in the record

Testimonial
  • Parol evidence admitted by Referee to show actual execution date was February 15, 1954
Documentary
  • Chattel mortgage recorded February 17, 1954, with date stated as 'this * * * day of February, 1954'
Challenged
  • Evidence type: Parol evidence · Challenge basis: Alleged inadmissibility under Massachusetts statute and precedent · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Referee found it admissible to establish execution date · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed

Authorities

Cited authorities (6)

Shaughnessey v. Lewis, 130 Mass. 355
distinguishedprecedent
Cited as 1874 case where parol evidence was admissible to establish date of mortgage delivery
Petitioner argued 1883 amendment intended to alter this rule
In re Jennings, D.C.Mass., 284 F. 729
followedprecedent
Cited as 1922 bankruptcy case under same statute where Referee admitted parol evidence and Judge Brewster accepted reasoning in part
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Medfield, etc., R. Co., 215 Mass. 156, 158, 102 N.E. 484
appliedprecedent
Cited as authority that Massachusetts courts permit introduction of parol evidence for date establishment
Federal Trust Co. v. Bristol County St. R. Co., 222 Mass. 35, 44, 109 N.E. 880
appliedprecedent
Cited as authority that Massachusetts courts permit introduction of parol evidence for date establishment
Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 9, s. 2410, p. 36
appliedpersuasive
Cited for general rule on parol evidence to establish date of document
Jones on Chattel Mortgages, 5th ed., s. 103, p. 155
appliedpersuasive
Cited for general rule on parol evidence to establish date of document

Related cases (4)

Shaughnessey v. Lewis, 130 Mass. 355
prior appeal
Parol evidence admissible to establish date of mortgage delivery (1874 decision)
In re Jennings, D.C.Mass., 284 F. 729
prior appeal
Referee admitted parol evidence; Judge Brewster accepted reasoning in part (1922 decision)
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Medfield, etc., R. Co., 215 Mass. 156, 158, 102 N.E. 484
prior appeal
Cited as authority that Massachusetts courts permit parol evidence for date establishment
Federal Trust Co. v. Bristol County St. R. Co., 222 Mass. 35, 44, 109 N.E. 880
prior appeal
Cited as authority that Massachusetts courts permit parol evidence for date establishment

Statutes

  • Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed.) chapter 255, § 1 (recording requirement for chattel mortgages)

Standards & doctrines

  • Parol evidence rule applied to document dates
  • Statutory interpretation of recording requirements

Legal principles applied

  • Parol evidence admissible to fill in missing dates in documents
  • Extrinsic evidence not contradictory when document silent
  • Statutory commands for recording designed for creditor protection
Index terms78
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
Referee in Bankruptcy order upholding validity of chattel mortgage
Appealed from
Referee in Bankruptcy
Context
District Court affirms Referee's order after reviewing admissibility of parol evidence
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Action type
denied
Target
Trustee's petition for review
Appealed from
Trustee in Bankruptcy
Context
District Court denies petition, concluding parol evidence was properly admitted
Scope
full
Disposition vote
unanimous
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Wyzanski
Courts
Statutes cited
Practice areas
Other index terms