Posts tagged "Diamond"

Bank of America, N.A. v. Diamond Financial, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-167-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   14-P-1315                                       Appeals Court   BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.[1]  vs.  DIAMOND FINANCIAL, LLC. No. 14-P-1315. Suffolk.     June 12, 2015. – October 20, 2015.   Present:  Cohen, Green, & Trainor, JJ. Subrogation.  Mortgage, Priority, Junior lien.  Jurisdiction, Equitable.  Land Court.       Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on December 22, 2011.   The case was heard by Judith C. Cutler, J., on motions for summary judgment.     George E. Sousa for the defendant. Howard S. Goldman for the plaintiff.      TRAINOR, J.  Bank of America (BOA), the plaintiff, brought suit against Diamond Financial, LLC (Diamond),[2] seeking equitable subrogation of a mortgage it holds on property located at 18 Eastwood Road, in the town of Shrewsbury.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.  In granting the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the judge found that BOA “is entitled to be equitably subrogated to the priority position” for $ 330,368.29 of the previously recorded mortgage, which was discharged.  The defendant, Diamond, appeals. Background.  We review the relevant undisputed facts.  Milton J. Miranda and Solange D. Miranda purchased a property in Shrewsbury on July 31, 2002.  The purchase was financed for the most part with a mortgage loan from Moneyone Corporation.  On August 24, 2004, the Mirandas refinanced with a $ 336,150 mortgage loan from Argent Mortgage Company, LLC (Argent).[3]  This mortgage was recorded. On or about June 28, 2006, the Mirandas borrowed $ 50,000 from the defendant and granted the defendant a mortgage on the Shrewsbury property and on a property in the city of Worcester.[4]  On September 29, 2006, the Mirandas refinanced the Argent mortgage with a mortgage loan of $ 344,000 from Equity Advantage (Equity).  As part of the refinancing, $ 330,368.29 of the Equity loan was used to pay the full balance of the Argent mortgage.  The Equity mortgage was recorded on October 12, 2006, and the discharge of the Argent mortgage was recorded on October 30, 2006.  The closing of the Equity mortgage was conducted by a closing attorney and Closeline, LLC.  The Diamond mortgage was not identified during the refinancing process and Equity did not enter into a subrogation agreement.  The closing attorney issued a title insurance policy through TICOR Title Insurance Company (TICOR). There is no evidence that Diamond learned of the change in the record order of liens prior to this action.  There […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 20, 2015 at 8:03 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Diamond Group, Inc. v. Selective Distribution International, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-139-13)

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       12‑P‑864                                        Appeals Court   Diamond Group, Inc.  vs.  Selective Distribution International, Inc. No. 12‑P‑864. Middlesex.     January 8, 2013.  ‑  November 25, 2013. Present:  Graham, Grainger, & Sikora, JJ.   Jurisdiction, Personal, Long‑arm statute, Forum non conveniens.  Constitutional Law.  Due Process of Law.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 19, 2009.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J.     Scott P. Fink for the plaintiff. Leonard M. Singer for the defendant.       SIKORA, J.  This appeal presents a question of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts over a business corporation located exclusively in New York State.  The plaintiff, Diamond Group, Inc. (Diamond), is a wholesale distributor of perfume products; its sole business location lies in Newton, Massachusetts.  The defendant, Selective Distribution International, Inc. (Selective), is a distributor of fragrances, cosmetics, and beauty aids and accessories to retailers; its sole location lies in Jericho (Long Island), New York.  Diamond brought suit against Selective in Superior Court for nonpayment for goods sold and delivered.  It alleged that, over a period of twenty-one months, it had sold perfume products to Selective of a value of $ 995,692.35, but that Selective had failed to pay a balance due of $ 529,689.70.  Diamond pleaded claims of breach of contract, quantum meruit entitlement, and unfair or deceptive conduct within the meaning of G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2 and 11.  If proven, the wrongful nonpayment for more than half a million dollars worth of perfume would constitute conduct in fragrante delicto. However, this appeal does not require a decision of that ultimate question.  It requires instead the determination whether the Massachusetts courts have jurisdiction to entertain the claim.  In response to Diamond’s complaint, Selective moved under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, forum non conveniens.  After supplementation of the allegations of the verified complaint by affidavits and appended exhibits by both parties, and after submission of extensive memoranda of law, a judge of the Superior Court concluded that Massachusetts courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Selective and entered judgment of dismissal.  For the following reasons, we now reverse.   Background.  These undisputed facts emerge from the verified complaint, the parties’ affidavits, and their attached exhibits.  Each of the corporate parties in this case is primarily a one-man […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 25, 2013 at 5:56 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,