Copley Place Associates, LLC v. Téllez-Bortoni (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-029-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-165                                        Appeals Court   COPLEY PLACE ASSOCIATES, LLC  vs.  CARLOS TÉLLEZ-BORTONI.     No. 16-P-165.   Suffolk.     December 9, 2016. – March 16, 2017.   Present:  Milkey, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Fraud.  Deceit.  Real Property, Lease.  Contract, Lease of real estate.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Judgment notwithstanding verdict.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 24, 2012.   A motion for summary judgment was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J.; the case was tried before Robert B. Gordon, J., and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was heard by him.     Robert E. Curtis, Jr., for the defendant. Martin M. Fantozzi (David M. Zucker also present) for the plaintiff.     SACKS, J.  The defendant, Carlos Téllez-Bortoni, appeals from a judgment entered against him in favor of the plaintiff, Copley Place Associates, LLC (Copley), on claims for fraud and violation of G. L. c. 93A.  He argues that a judge of the Superior Court erred in awarding Copley partial summary judgment against him on liability.  We conclude that Copley’s motion failed to establish as undisputed fact that Copley relied to its detriment on false representations made by Téllez-Bortoni.  We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. Background.  Copley’s claims arose out of a failed venture in which Irish Pub Group, Inc. (IPG), was to have operated a restaurant in space leased from Copley in its mall located in Boston.  Téllez-Bortoni signed the lease on IPG’s behalf.  Section 24.11 of the lease stated, “If Tenant is or will be a corporation, the persons executing this Lease on behalf of Tenant hereby covenant and warrant that . . . the person signing this Lease on behalf of the corporation is an officer of Tenant, and is duly authorized to sign and execute this Lease.”  Sometime after the lease was signed, Téllez-Bortoni informed Copley that one Raymond Houle was “a part of [IPG],” causing Copley to inform a bank that Houle could negotiate a large check Copley had issued to IPG as a portion of a “Landlord’s Contribution” provided for in the lease.  Houle deposited the check in IPG’s account. IPG did not use the funds to further the project as required by the lease, the restaurant never opened, and Copley sued IPG, Téllez-Bortoni, Houle, and others on a variety of theories, seeking to recover amounts […]

Read more...