Cedar-Fieldstone Marketplace, LP v. T.S. Fitness, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-030-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   17-P-791                                        Appeals Court   CEDAR-FIELDSTONE MARKETPLACE, LP  vs.  T.S. FITNESS, INC.,[1] & another.[2]     No. 17-P-791.   Bristol.     February 2, 2018. – March 15, 2018.   Present:  Milkey, Massing, & Shin, JJ.     Guaranty.  Contract, Lease of real estate, Release from liability, To guarantee rent payments.  Release.  Real Property, Lease.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 18, 2015.   The case was heard by Renee P. Dupuis, J., on motions for summary judgment.     John A. Walsh for the defendants. John F. White, Jr., for the plaintiff.     MILKEY, J.  In this case, we consider whether the release of a landlord’s claims against a tenant for unpaid rent pursuant to a lease precluded the landlord from bringing a collection action against a guarantor of the lease.  We conclude that it did not. Background.  The defendant T.S. Fitness, Inc. (tenant), rented commercial property in New Bedford from the plaintiff, Cedar-Fieldstone Marketplace, LP (landlord).  In 2011, those parties agreed to a modification of the then-existing lease between them.  To secure the tenant’s payment obligations under the modified lease, the tenant’s president, the defendant Thomas W. Sheridan, executed a personal guaranty, which was memorialized in a detailed, three-page document.  Under the terms of the guaranty, Sheridan’s liability was “co-extensive with that of [the t]enant,” except that it was capped at a specified amount, $ 52,271.06.  The existence of that cap appears to explain why the document is captioned a limited guaranty. Except for the cap on his liability, Sheridan’s obligations under the guaranty are set forth expansively, as we will review in detail later.  The guaranty states that “[n]o waiver or modification of any provision of this [g]uaranty nor any termination of the [g]uaranty shall be effective unless in writing, signed by [the l]andlord.” After the lease modification, the tenant subsequently defaulted on the lease, prompting the landlord to bring a summary process action against it in District Court.  That action was resolved through an agreement for judgment in February of 2013.  The parties to the agreement for judgment were the parties to the summary process action, that is, the landlord and the tenant.  Sheridan himself signed the agreement for judgment, but he did so in his capacity as president of the tenant. The essence of the agreement for judgment was […]

Read more...