Van Liew v. Eliopoulos v. Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-109-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-567                                        Appeals Court   ROLAND VAN LIEW  vs.  PHILIP ELIOPOULOS; Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc., third-party defendant.     No. 16-P-567.   Middlesex.     January 5, 2017. – August 25, 2017.   Present:  Green, Meade, & Blake, JJ.     Libel and Slander.  Constitutional Law, Libel and slander.  Damages, Libel, Emotional distress, Remittitur.  State Ethics Commission.  Conflict of Interest.  Emotional Distress.  Practice, Civil, Judicial discretion, Instructions to jury.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 3, 2011.   The case was tried before Kenneth V. Desmond, Jr., J., and a motion for a new trial or in the alternative for remittitur was heard by him.     Brian C. Newberry for Roland Van Liew & another. David H. Rich for the defendant.     BLAKE, J.  In 2010, a bitter feud erupted between Chelmsford residents Roland Van Liew and Philip Eliopoulos.  Van Liew commenced the dispute by accusing Eliopoulos, a local selectman, of shady political dealings in his work as a real estate attorney.  After Eliopoulos responded publicly to the allegations, Van Liew filed in Superior Court this defamation action against him.  Eliopoulos counterclaimed, alleging defamation on the part of Van Liew, and impleaded Van Liew’s company, Hands on Technology Transfer, Inc. (collectively, Van Liew).  A jury subsequently found Van Liew liable for making twenty-nine defamatory statements, and awarded $ 2.9 million in damages.  They found no wrongdoing on the part of Eliopoulos.  The judge denied Van Liew’s posttrial motions on the counterclaim verdict,[1] and he now appeals,[2] challenging the proof of defamation on the twenty-nine statements.  He also claims that the judge committed evidentiary errors and that the excessive damages awarded require remittitur.  We affirm. Background.  1.  Real estate development in Chelmsford.  In the summer of 2008, Chelmsford real estate broker and developer Michael Eliopoulos, Philip’s[3] father, approached Eastern Bank about a historic home situated on a parcel of land it owned in Chelmsford center.  Michael then negotiated the sale of an undeveloped portion of the property with Thomas Dunn, an employee of Eastern Bank.  The purchase price was $ 480,000.  Philip and his law firm reviewed draft agreements and served as real estate counsel.  The sale closed on June 17, 2009, after which the 2.41-acre property became known as 9 North Street (the property).[4]  During the real estate negotiations, until April of 2009, when […]

Read more...