Matarese v. Calise Case Brief

Supreme Court of Rhode Island1973Docket #2233882
305 A.2d 112 111 R.I. 551 1973 R.I. LEXIS 1245 Property Remedies Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: An agent agreed to purchase Italian land for his principal but fraudulently took title in his own name. A Rhode Island court, having personal jurisdiction over the agent, imposed a constructive trust and ordered him to convey the property to the principal.

Legal Significance: A court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant can compel the conveyance of foreign real estate by imposing a constructive trust. Breach of a fiduciary duty arising from an agency agreement to purchase land constitutes constructive fraud, an exception to the Statute of Frauds.

Matarese v. Calise Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Plaintiff Matarese sought to purchase a parcel of land in Forio, Italy, owned by Anna DiMaio, who resided in the United States. In March 1966, Matarese met with defendant Calise in Italy. Matarese engaged Calise, who was returning to the U.S., to act as his agent to purchase the property from DiMaio at any cost. In exchange for this service, Matarese promised Calise the top floor of a building on the property. Calise agreed. This oral agreement created an agency relationship. Instead of acting for Matarese, Calise located DiMaio and purchased the property for himself for $3,000, taking title in his own name. Calise then sent a telegram to his mother, which he knew Matarese would see, falsely claiming the purchase price was $22,000 and requesting $3,000. Believing Calise had purchased the property on his behalf, Matarese sent the $3,000. After Calise recorded the deed in his own name, Matarese filed suit in Rhode Island, where Calise was a resident and was personally served. The trial court found Calise had perpetrated a fraud and breached his fiduciary duty.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can a court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant impose a constructive trust and order the conveyance of real property located in a foreign country where the defendant, acting as the plaintiff’s agent, purchased the property for himself in breach of his fiduciary duty?

Yes. The court affirmed the order compelling conveyance, holding that the defendant’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitati

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Can a court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant impose a constructive trust and order the conveyance of real property located in a foreign country where the defendant, acting as the plaintiff’s agent, purchased the property for himself in breach of his fiduciary duty?

Conclusion

This case affirms the broad power of equity courts to remedy fraud Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut

Legal Rule

A court of equity with personal jurisdiction over a defendant has the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in three parts. First, it affirmed its jurisdiction. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut la

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant can order them
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sin

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial