Riley v. Crapser et al

Filing 25

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment (Danieli, Chris)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10439-GAO
LYNNE F. RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN R. CRAPSER and FRANCINE S. SHOGEL,
Defendants.

ORDER
January 23, 2014
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This case arises out debtor, Steven Crapser’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The trustee
of the estate, Lynne Riley, commenced an adversary proceeding against Crapser and his nondebtor spouse, Francine Shogel, seeking a determination that Crapser holds an interest in the
proceeds from the sale of a vacation home in Maine. Prior to the sale of the house, it was held
solely in his wife’s name. The trustee alleges that a resulting trust was created by the actions of
the defendants, giving Crapser a fifty percent interest in the home and the proceeds from its sale.
If the trustee prevails, Crapser’s share of the proceeds would be included in the bankruptcy estate
and potentially available to creditors. The reference to the bankruptcy court was withdrawn by
this Court in June 2012. The defendants have moved for summary judgment and the plaintiff has
moved for a preliminary injunction freezing the proceeds.
In order to determine whether a resulting trust was created, the intent of the parties must
be determined. Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 442 (1959). Intent is a factual issue. There are
disputed facts, and there certainly are disputed inferences to be drawn from the facts. In short, it
is not possible to say that there are no genuine issues as to material facts, a necessary conclusion

for the grant of summary judgment. Rather, the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them
are properly to be resolved by a trier of fact on the basis of a full evidentiary presentation,
including witness testimony.
Furthermore, the factual disputes in this case make a determination of the likelihood of
success on the merits uncertain prior to trial. Granting a preliminary injunction at this point is not
appropriate.
Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 20) and the
plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 7) are DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2