Bakwin v. Mardirosian, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-060-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11393 MICHAEL BAKWIN vs. ROBERT M. MARDIROSIAN & others.[1] Barnstable. December 3, 2013. ‑ April 2, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Judgment. Practice, Civil, Judgment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 13, 2007. The case was tried before Christopher A. Muse, J., and a motion for entry of judgment was heard by him. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Thomas J. Carey, Jr. (Michael A. Collora with him) for the plaintiff. Cynthia B. Hartman for the defendants. SPINA, J. The plaintiff in the civil action below, having prevailed on the merits of his claims in Superior Court, appealed the form of the judgment ordered by the trial judge with respect to the remedies granted against certain relief defendants[2] pursuant to the plaintiff’s claims under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), G. L. c. 109A. We granted the plaintiff’s application for direct appellate review, and we affirm in part and reverse in part. 1. Background. This case arises out of a thirty-year-old art theft in Berkshire County and the plaintiff’s eventual recovery of seven stolen paintings from the defendant, Robert M. Mardirosian, a Massachusetts attorney who had represented the suspected thief, David Colvin, prior to Colvin’s death in 1979. The facts surrounding the defendant’s botched attempts to profit from having found the paintings, and the circuitous path to their recovery, from Stockbridge, to London, to Geneva, and eventually back to the plaintiff, are set forth in detail in United States v. Mardirosian, 602 F.3d 1, 4, 5, 6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 287 (2010). Suffice it to say, Robert Mardirosian was convicted by a jury in Federal court of one count of possessing, concealing, or storing the stolen paintings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315 (2006). Id. at 4. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed both his conviction and his sentence of seven years in prison and three years of supervised release. Id. at 4, 6-7. Mardirosian also was ordered to pay a $ 100,000 fine and to return the paintings still in his possession. Id. at 7. The case before us arises not from this criminal prosecution, but from civil […]