## Facts

- Abdu C. Nessralla owned a farm in Halifax, Massachusetts, near the Hayward and Sturtevant farms.
- John H. Peck (Nessralla’s son-in-law) worked for entities associated with Cumberland Farms and V.S.H. Realty, Inc.
- In 1981, Peck asked Nessralla to serve as a “straw” purchaser for V.S.H. Realty’s acquisition of the Hayward farm; Peck agreed to serve as a “straw” to help Nessralla acquire the Sturtevant farm.
- Nessralla took title to the Hayward farm after contributing $11,000; V.S.H. Realty later reimbursed him and paid the full purchase price, and Nessralla deeded the Hayward farm to V.S.H. Realty in 1982.
- Nessralla wanted the Sturtevant farm but believed its owner would not sell to him because of a dispute; he asked Peck to act as a straw purchaser.
- Peck repeatedly assured Nessralla he was using his best efforts to acquire the Sturtevant farm for Nessralla, but Nessralla never tendered any funds to Peck to make an offer or purchase the property.
- Peck ultimately acquired the Sturtevant farm through a transaction in which Nessralla did not participate and did not provide purchase money.
- Nessralla sued seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement requiring Peck (and related defendants) to convey the Sturtevant farm to him.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s findings of fact under Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(a) were invalid because they were reduced to writing after the judge left the Superior Court bench.
2. Whether, on the merits, specific performance could be ordered to enforce an alleged oral agreement to convey the Sturtevant farm notwithstanding the statute of frauds and the trial judge’s findings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held the trial judge’s Rule 52(a) findings were valid even though written after the judge left the Superior Court bench.
- The court rejected the Appeals Court’s order vacating the judgment on the ground that the findings were “null and void.”
- Applying the “clearly erroneous” standard, the court accepted the trial judge’s key findings, including that Nessralla never tendered funds to Peck for the Sturtevant farm.
- The court affirmed judgment for the defendants, denying specific performance of the alleged oral agreement to convey the Sturtevant farm.

## Legal Principles

- Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(a) requires findings in bench trials to support review, but does not automatically void findings solely because they are written after the trial judge leaves the trial court bench, absent prejudice and where the judge presided over the trial.
- Appellate review of Rule 52(a) findings is deferential; findings are not set aside unless clearly erroneous.
- An oral agreement to convey an interest in land is generally unenforceable under the statute of frauds unless a recognized exception is proved.
- A plaintiff seeking specific performance must show facts justifying equitable relief; failure to contribute to the purchase or to prove conduct taking the matter outside the statute of frauds supports denial of specific performance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the validity of post-departure written findings under Rule 52(a) and, relying on those findings and the statute of frauds, affirmed judgment for the defendants and denied specific performance of the alleged oral agreement to convey the Sturtevant farm.


Nessralla v. Peck, 403 Mass. 757, 532 N.E.2d 685 (Mass. 1989)