Posts tagged "Gold"

Gold Star Homes, LLC v. Darbouze, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-049-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   14-P-1177                                       Appeals Court   GOLD STAR HOMES, LLC  vs.  MARCUS DARBOUZE & another.[1] No. 14-P-1177. Essex.     March 2, 2016. – May 11, 2016.   Present:  Hanlon, Sullivan, & Massing, JJ.     Summary Process, Appeal.  Housing Court.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, Pendency of prior action.  Mortgage, Foreclosure.  Real Property, Mortgage, Deed.       Summary Process.  Complaint filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on September 16, 2013.   The case was heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J.     John L. McGowan for the defendants. John P. Miller (Jennifer H. O’Brien with him) for the plaintiff.     MASSING, J.  The defendants, Marcus Darbouze (Marcus) and Marie R. Darbouze (Marie)[2] (together, the Darbouzes), appeal from a judgment, after a summary process trial in the Housing Court, awarding possession of their residence in Billerica (the property) to the plaintiff, Gold Star Homes, LLC (Gold Star).  The Darbouzes assert that the Housing Court judge should not have permitted the trial to go forward during the pendency in the Land Court of a related, prior action in which Marie sought a declaration invalidating the foreclosure sale.  On the merits, the Darbouzes contend that the judge erred by rejecting their defenses to summary process:  that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), the entity that conducted the foreclosure sale, was not the mortgage holder, and that MERS’s postforeclosure conveyance of the property to Gold Star by foreclosure deed was ineffective.  We affirm.[3] Background.  1.  The mortgage and foreclosure.  The evidence presented at the summary process trial established the following facts.[4]  On January 20, 2006, Marie purchased the property for $ 345,000, financed entirely by two loans.  She borrowed $ 276,000 of the purchase price from Fremont Investment & Loan (Fremont), granting a first mortgage to MERS, “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.”  (The details of the loan for the remainder of the purchase price, secured by a second mortgage, are immaterial to the subsequent events and proceedings.)  Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), as trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-1, purchased the loan later in 2006 as part of a pooling agreement. On January 7, 2008, Deutsche Bank initiated proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501 et seq. (2006) (servicemembers act) in the Land Court prior to commencing foreclosure on […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 11, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Chambers, et al. v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-020-13)

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     SJC‑11231   MICHELE LeCOMTE CHAMBERS[1] & others[2]  vs.  GOLD MEDAL BAKERY, INC. & others.[3]     Bristol.     October 4, 2012.  ‑  February 8, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Corporation, Board of directors, Close corporation, Derivative action, Officers and agents, Stockholder.  Privileged Communication.  Evidence, Privileged communication, Privileged record.  Practice, Civil, Subpoena.  Subpoena.  Fiduciary.  Attorney at Law, Attorney‑client relationship, Communication with represented party, Work product.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 3, 2009.     A motion for a protective order was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     John N. Love (Anthony A. Froio with him) for the defendants. Howard M. Cooper (Heidi A. Nadel & Kimberly E. Dean with him) for the plaintiffs.     SPINA, J.  The issue presented in this appeal is whether a closely-held corporation and its corporate counsel and accountants can assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection against directors-shareholders asserting claims against the corporation and its directors.  Because there is sufficient evidence that the plaintiffs’ interests are adverse to the interests of the corporation as concerns the 2007 and present litigations, we conclude that the plaintiffs are not entitled to privileged or protected information relating to the two litigations. Background and procedure.  We recount the facts in particular detail because of their significance to the disposition of this case.  The story leading to the present appeal begins with two brothers who were in the bakery business together.  The brothers each owned fifty per cent of two closely-held companies (collectively, Gold Medal), which have grown into major suppliers of wholesale bakery products in New England. The individual parties to the present action are split along family lines, with each side of the litigation representing the legacy of one of the brothers.  On one side are Georgette LeComte and Michele LeComte Chambers, respectively widow and daughter of one of the brothers, who together own fifty per cent of Gold Medal stock.  Both joined Gold Medal’s four-seat board of directors in 2008, assuming two of the four, or fifty per cent, of the seats.  Georgette since has been replaced as director by her designee, Michael Kehoe.  These three individuals are the plaintiffs. On the other side of the […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm

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

Chambers, et al. v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-020-13)

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       11‑P‑281                                        Appeals Court   MICHELE LeCOMTE CHAMBERS[1] & others[2]  vs.  GOLD MEDAL BAKERY, INC., & others.[3]     No. 11‑P‑281. Bristol.     October 1, 2012.  ‑  February 5, 2013. Present:  Cypher, Katzmann, & Milkey, JJ.   Arbitration, Appeal of order compelling arbitration.  Corporation, Close corporation.  Contract, Arbitration, Construction of contract.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 3, 2009.   A motion to stay litigation and to compel arbitration was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J.       Brian A. Davis for Roland S. LeComte & another. Heidi A. Nadel (Kimberly Dean & Christopher R. O’Hara with her) for the plaintiffs.   MILKEY, J.  Defendant Gold Medal Bakery, Inc. (Gold Medal), is a large-scale bakery based in Fall River that supplies bread and other baked goods to supermarket chains throughout the northeast.  It is a closely-held corporation whose ownership is split evenly between two branches of the LeComte family.  The plaintiffs collectively own half of the shares, with the remaining half held by defendant Roland S. LeComte and his sister-in-law Florine LeComte (not a party).  Roland S. and his son, defendant Brian R. LeComte, manage Gold Medal’s operations.  The plaintiffs allege that Roland S. and Brian, together with others, committed a variety of corporate misdeeds.  A subset of the defendants sought to compel arbitration of some of the underlying dispute and to stay the entire litigation pending resolution of the arbitration.  A Superior Court judge denied their motion, ruling that the agreement under which the defendants had moved for arbitration was no longer of any force and effect.  In this interlocutory appeal, see G. L. c. 251, § 18(a) (1), we affirm, albeit on different grounds. A.  Background.  1.  Early history.  Gold Medal was founded in 1912 by Auguste LeComte.  Auguste had two sons, Leonidas (Leo) and Roland A. (father of Roland S.).  The plaintiffs trace their ownership interests to that of Leo, while Roland S. and Florine trace theirs to that of Roland A.  Joined as a defendant is a second family business known as Bakery Products Corp. (Bakery Products).  Bakery Products is involved in the distribution of Gold Medal’s products, and it receives commissions on such sales.  From what appears in the record, the management of the two affiliated companies has been intertwined. 2.  1981 succession plans.  By 1981, Roland A. had died, and  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 5, 2013 at 4:04 pm

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


Warning: include(/home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/includes/db.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

Warning: include(/home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/includes/db.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/includes/db.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/cpanel/ea-php72/root/usr/share/pear') in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function _a9cde373() on null in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php:1 Stack trace: #0 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php(1): _b9566752() #1 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-content/themes/hmtpro5/footer.php(237): include_once('/home/chelseam/...') #2 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/template.php(790): require_once('/home/chelseam/...') #3 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/template.php(725): load_template('/home/chelseam/...', true, Array) #4 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/general-template.php(92): locate_template(Array, true, true, Array) #5 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-content/themes/hmtpro5/archive.php(141): get_footer() #6 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include('/home/chelseam/...') #7 /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com in /home/chelseam/public_html/masslegalresources.com/stas/cnt.php on line 1