Laurin v. DeCarolis Construction Co., Inc., 372 Mass. 688, 363 N.E.2d 675 (1977)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: Laurin v. DeCarolis Construction Co., Inc., 372 Mass. 688, 363 N.E.2d 675 (1977).
- Court / Year: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1977.
- Topic tags: equitable_interest | equitable_conversion | waste
- Facts: The Laurins signed a purchase and sale agreement to buy a parcel and a single-family dwelling from DeCarolis on March 8, 1971; the deed was delivered September 21, 1971. After the agreement but before the conveyance, the vendor (DeCarolis), who retained legal title and possession, removed loam, gravel, trees, and shrubs from the property without the buyers’ consent and over their express objection (except as needed for construction). The buyers sued for the value of the materials removed.
- Holding: A buyer who has signed a binding purchase and sale agreement holds equitable ownership of the land even though the vendor retains legal title and possession until the deed passes; the vendor therefore has an equitable duty not to commit waste or strip value from the property, and is liable to the buyer for the fair market value of the gravel and other materials wrongfully removed. The Court treated the claim as one for breach of contract (the buyers’ equitable interest), not conversion, and remanded for recomputation of damages (the award should reflect the value of the gravel in place, not enhanced by the vendor’s labor in extracting and loading it).
- Reasoning: Under equitable-conversion principles, the executed purchase agreement vests equitable ownership of the realty in the buyer; the vendor holds the legal title as security for the price and as a kind of trustee, and may not diminish the value of the thing the buyer has contracted to receive.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Laurin is the cleanest Massachusetts authority that a purchaser under a real-estate purchase agreement holds a protectable equitable interest in the land before legal title passes. By extension it supports the proposition that an installment land-contract / contract-for-deed buyer — who is in possession and paying toward a deed — has equitable ownership the seller cannot waste away. It does not, however, decide how a long-term installment contract is terminated on default (forfeiture vs. foreclosure), which Massachusetts case law has not squarely resolved.
- Good-law status: Good law; routinely cited for the buyer’s equitable interest and the vendor’s no-waste duty under a Massachusetts purchase agreement.
- Source (retrieved): https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/laurin-v-decarolis-const-895376418 · official reporter copy at http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/372/372mass688.html · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: massachusetts; see equitable-conversion.
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.