One suspects this is not a family that will be getting together for Easter dinner

A federal appeals court today tossed a father's lawsuit against his son over a $110,000 promissory note - because the father could not prove he was actually in Massachusetts when he made a phone call to arrange the initial payment.

Bernard Adams sued his son Lee in 2008 over money he'd wired Lee in 1988 to buy some land in Frisco, Texas on which to build a house after he got married. Bernard claimed the payment was a loan and demanded repayment; Lee said the money was meant as a wedding gift and the only reason he signed a promissory note was because his father's accountant said the note would help with his father's taxes.

Adams pere sued Adams fils in 2008 under Massachusetts law, which at the time allowed for a 20-year statute of limitations on enforcing a contract - far longer in most other states (Massachusetts has since adopted a six-year limit). In its ruling today, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said that since the younger Adams was not a Massachusetts resident at the time of payment (or at any time since), his father had to prove that he himself was in Massachusetts when the agreement was reached:

First, there is no evidence that the one phone call which Bernard cites was indeed between Lee and "the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," as Bernard suggests, as there is no evidence that Bernard was in Massachusetts when he placed the call. More importantly, even if Bernard were in Massachusetts at the time, it is significant that he, and not Lee, initiated the phone call. The Note that resulted is one that Bernard required Lee to execute before delivering the funds. A phone call from Bernard to Lee in Texas concerning a contract that Bernard demanded that Lee execute is not sufficient evidence that Lee "reached into" Massachusetts.

Complete ruling.