Recent Verdicts

Most Recent Verdicts

The attorneys at Goldman & Pease LLC (“G&P”) and, in particular, Attorneys Howard S. Goldman and Cameron C. Pease, have extensive civil litigation and trial experience particularly in the area of real estate related disputes. This experience includes drafting various complaints, discovery materials, pre-trial motions, settlement discussions, arbitrations and mediations, both bench and jury trials, and appeals.

The five most recent verdicts are as follows:

  1. Dorothy A. Leblanc and Denise Leblanc v. Christine Araujo, Angelo Buonopane, Peter Chin, Michael Monahan, and Robert Shortsleeve, as they constitute members of the Board of Appeal for the City of Boston and Paul McCologan, Sr. and Benjamin Forde, Suffolk Superior Court, Docket Number 07-5353F.

    This was a 4 day trial beginning on April 2, 2009 and continuing and ending on April 7, 2009. It was a de novo appeal to the Superior Court of the granting of a variance to the Defendants to build a parking structure in South Boston. The Plaintiffs, whom we represented, challenged the granting of the variance. Key issues in the trial were whether the Plaintiffs had “standing” to challenge the issuance of the variance as aggrieved parties. Whether the parking structure will diminish the Plaintiffs’ property value. Whether the proposed structure will impede and/or block natural sunlight onto Plaintiff’s property. Whether the proposed structure will cause problems with drainage resulting in flooding on Plaintiff’s property.

  2. Homesteader Enterprises v. Jonathan Brickman, Brickman Publishing Corp. and Community Magazines, LLC, Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No 2008-02475This matter arises out of a dispute between a two publishers, Jonathan Brickman, Individually, Brickman Publishing Corp., and Community Magazines, LLC (collectively, “Defendant”) and Homesteader Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) regarding the parties’ performance under certain License Agreements and other subsequent agreements. Plaintiff alleged Defendant’s non-compliance with obligations arising out of the License Agreements and subsequent agreements and, in particular, the non-competition agreement and prior settlement agreement. The Plaintiff was seeking in excess of $500,000 in damages. G & P represented Defendant in the arbitration, which took five (5) days. Key issues in the case were enforceability of non-competition agreements and restrictive covenants. The non-competition agreements were effectively held unenforceable. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Arbitrator which was denied. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate and/or Modify the Arbitration Award with the Middlesex Superior Court, which Motion was denied and the court confirmed the arbitration award.
  3. Business Cards Overnight, Inc. doing business as Wholesale Printing Specialists v. Salvatore N. Lupoli and Nicholas A. Lupoli, Jr. As Trustees of The Riverwalk Realty Trust, II doing business a Riverwalk Partners, LLC and John S. Crowe, As Trustee of Riverwalk Realty Trust doing business as Riverwalk Development. Essex Superior Court, C.A. No. 2008-1867.

    This is an action for breach of a commercial lease in which G & P represented the Plaintiff/Tenant. From 1999 through 2007, the Plaintiff rented certain commercial space from the Defendant landlord. In 2007, when negotiating a new lease with the Defendant/Landlord, the Plaintiff/Tenant realized that it had been overpaying its rent and trash removal costs since the inception of its tenancy, because it had been paying for 7,556 square feet of space when it only had 6,427.97 square feet of total space. An architect’s measurements of the usable square feet of space at the subject premises showed that there was only 6,427.97 square feet of usable space at the subject premises. While the lease provided for 7,556 square feet of rentable space, the rent calculation per year was a flat rate and the lease did not specifically provide that it was based upon square footage. The key issue in the case, upon which the Defendant/Landlord moved to dismiss upon is whether Plaintiff’s breach of lease claim seeking reimbursement of rent paid must fail as the lease is for a flat fixed fee amount regardless of the amount of square footage. The Plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking reimbursement of overpayment of rent based upon a breach of contract theory. G & P obtained summary judgment as to liability on behalf of its client and the matter is to be scheduled for an assessment of damages hearing.

  4. Maria Armas v. Freemont Investment and Loan, Kenneth J. Perroge, and FidelityNational Title Insurance, Bristol Superior Court 2007-01790.

    On or about December 22, 2004, Philip A. Brown the developer/seller, (“Seller/Developer’) built and sold to the Plaintiff the Property located at 206B Tremont Street, Taunton, Massachusetts (“Property”). On or about December 22, 2004 at closing, the closing attorney, accepted a fax/copy of an alleged Certificate of Occupancy for the Property from the Seller/Developer. The Town of Taunton subsequently notified the parties that the Certificate of Occupancy never properly issued and the Certificate of Occupancy presented at the closing was a forgery. On or about December 23, 2004, Fidelity National Title Insurance issued and Armas (“Plaintiff”) purchased an Owner’s Title Insurance Policy for the purchase of the Property. The Plaintiff never obtained a Certificate of Occupancy and the mortgage on the Property was subsequently foreclosed. The Plaintiff brought an action against Fidelity seeking damages under a breach of contract theory because Fidelity failed to pay out under the title insurance policy. The amount in controversy was the purchase price of the home lost at foreclosure, plus other damages to be determined at trial. The Plaintiff also claimed that Fidelity’s agent was negligent in failing to offer the Plaintiff an enhanced title insurance policy. G & P moved for summary judgment that was allowed in favor of Fidelity.

  5. Joy Harding v. Tabitha Coleman and Mary E. Jackson, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. 04-2466.

    G & P represented the Defendants/purchasers in this matter. The key issue in this case was a dispute regarding the legal description of the subject premises. The subject property contained two parcels of land that clearly were delineated in the deed that Plaintiff purchased previously from another party. Plaintiff alleged he did not mean to sell the contiguous parcel not containing a home. Plaintiff alleged that he made a mistake in the legal description. Plaintiff alleged that his closing attorney when drafting the deed to convey the property to the Defendant, erroneously included both parcels as contained in the deed that Plaintiff owned. Plaintiff contends that the purchase and sale agreement and the listing agreement between he and his broker, as well as Defendants’ understanding, was that the sale of the property only meant to embrace the land on which the home was located and not the second lot that was to be retained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff states there was an error to convey both lots and this was an error that Defendants understood. Plaintiff contended that she was entitled to receive back this second lot of land. The Defendants contended that they in good faith purchased the land that Plaintiff owned and that at all times, the understanding was that Defendants, for the sale price, were purchasing both the lot of land on which the home existed, and the adjacent lot of land, all contained in one deed. Defendants contend that a deed was executed conveying what both parties agreed to be contained in the selling price (i.e. both lots) and therefore there was no mistake. Defendants stated that everything went according to agreement between the parties and therefore they are entitled to keep the second lot of land as it was bargained for in the sale price. After four days of trial, G & P prevailed on behalf of its clients and the Defendants were able to retain title to both parcels.

Contact the Massachusetts litigation attorneys at Goldman & Pease for a free initial and confidential consultation regarding your legal matter.

The Massachusetts litigation lawyers at Goldman & Pease specialize in commercial and residential real estate lending matters and serve the greater Boston metro region including Alston, Arlington, Belmont, Brighton, Brookline, Cambridge, Canton, Dedham, Dover, Milton, Natick, Needham, Newton, Norwood, Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, Wellesley, Weston, West Roxbury, Westwood, and all of Massachusetts.