Posts tagged "1104616"

Martinez, et al. v. Waldstein (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-046-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   15-P-455                                        Appeals Court   FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, trustee,[1] & another[2]  vs.  THOMAS G. WALDSTEIN. No. 15-P-455. Middlesex.     January 13, 2016. – April 29, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Meade, & Neyman, JJ. Collateral Estoppel.  Judgment, Preclusive effect.  Negligence, Misrepresentation.  Contract, Misrepresentation.  Practice, Civil, Judgment on the pleadings, Affidavit.  Subrogation.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 2, 2014.   The case was heard by Kimberly S. Budd, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.     Peter S. Brooks for the plaintiffs. Damian R. LaPlaca for the defendant.     NEYMAN, J.  Francisco Martinez, trustee of the Baystate Portfolio Trust (trust), and Eric AmRhein (collectively, plaintiffs), appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their complaint alleging misrepresentation and violation of G. L. c. 93A, § 11, against the defendant, attorney Thomas G. Waldstein, on the basis of issue preclusion.  This is the second appeal to this court arising out of the plan to purchase the mortgage and foreclose on a property located at 3 Ronald Road in Sudbury (the property) in order to eliminate junior mortgages on the property.  See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Martinez, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2014) (Baystate I).  The plaintiffs’ claims in the present action hinge on their allegation that they reasonably relied on Waldstein’s representations in an affidavit regarding mortgage priorities on the property.  A Superior Court judge (motion judge) granted Waldstein’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the plaintiffs could not establish that they reasonably relied on Waldstein’s representations because a different Superior Court judge (trial judge) had found otherwise in Baystate I.[3]  The plaintiffs contend that the motion judge erred in applying issue preclusion because the issue of reasonable reliance was not actually litigated in Baystate I, and thus was neither identical to any issues raised in Baystate I nor essential to the judgment in Baystate I.  We affirm. 1.  Background.  We first summarize the relevant facts from the motion judge’s decision on Waldstein’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, taking those facts stated by the plaintiffs as true.  See Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(c), 365 Mass. 754 (1974); Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 530 (2002) (Jarosz).  We then look to the entire record of Baystate I, with a view toward comparing the issues adjudicated therein with the issues raised by the plaintiffs in the present action.  See Boyd […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 29, 2016 at 4:38 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

One moment, please...
Loader
Please wait while your request is being verified...
One moment, please...
Loader
Please wait while your request is being verified...