City of Beverly v. Bass River Golf Management, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-002-18)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 15-P-171 Appeals Court CITY OF BEVERLY vs. BASS RIVER GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC., & another.[1] No. 15-P-171. Essex. November 14, 2016. – January 5, 2018. Present: Sullivan, Maldonado, & Neyman, JJ. Contract, Municipality, Performance and breach. Municipal Corporations, Contracts. Consumer Protection Act, Trade or commerce, Unfair or deceptive act. Bankruptcy, Stay of other proceedings. Practice, Civil, Directed verdict, Amendment, New trial, Instructions to jury. Judgment, Amendment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 11, 2011. The case was tried before Robert A. Cornetta, J., and a motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial, was heard by him. Denis J. Sullivan for the defendants. Eitan Y. Goldberg, Assistant City Solicitor (Stephanie M. Williams, City Solicitor, also present) for the plaintiff. MALDONADO, J. In this case, we consider the propriety of actions taken by the city of Beverly (city), which owns the Beverly Golf and Tennis Club (Golf Club), and by Bass River Golf Management, Inc. (Bass River), which operated the facility for almost two years pursuant to a management contract with the city. On March 11, 2011, the city commenced an action in the Superior Court against Bass River and 31 Tozer Road, L.L.C. (Tozer), the guarantor of Bass River’s payment obligations to the city, asserting claims for breach of contract against each party and seeking damages. Bass River filed counterclaims against the city (subsequently amended) which alleged violations of G. L. c. 93A, breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of warranty, and conversion. Following a trial, the jury, in response to special questions, found that Bass River had breached its management contract with the city, that Tozer had guaranteed Bass River’s payment obligations, and that the city was entitled to damages of $ 631,969.63. The jury also found that the city had violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in its contractual relationship with Bass River, and that the city had converted Bass River’s property. The jury awarded Bass River damages of $ 48,967.33. Thereafter, the judge determined that Bass River had not proved that the city violated G. L. c. 93A. Bass River and Tozer filed a motion to amend the findings of facts and rulings of law, to amend the judgment, […]
CALM Golf, Inc. v. Read, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-055-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-01214 CALM GOLF, INC. vs. RENE J. READ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TOWN MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF DUXBURY, AND ROBERT TROY, ESQ. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action arises out of an award to plaintiff, CALM Golf, Inc.(“Calm”), from the Town of Duxbury (represented by its Town Manager, Rene Read) (“Duxbury”), to operate the North Hill Country Club and Golf Course (“North Hill”).1 Calm alleges that Duxbury is liable to it for breach of contract (Count I), violation of Chapter 93A (Count IV), and violation of the Massachusetts Public Bidding Statute, G. L. 30(b) (Count VI). Before the Court is Duxbury’s motion for summary judgment. A proper review of the record shows that the core facts are largely undisputed. It also shows that this case boils down to two simple, controlling propositions. First, did Duxbury’s award to Calm equate to a contract, either express or implied? Second, was Duxbury required to conclude a formal contract with Calm despite the fact that, as the result of litigation brought by a disappointed bidder – the thenextant manager of North Hill, Johnson Golf Management, Inc. (“Johnson) – this Court ordered Duxbury not to contract with Calm but rather to continue its contract with Johnson? 1 Count II, alleging misrepresentation against Duxbury, and Counts III and V, all of the counts against defendant Robert Troy, were previously dismissed by this Court. As the answer to both questions is “no,” Duxbury’s motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED. BACKGROUND The following relevant facts are either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in accordance with the dictates of Mass. R. Civ. P. 56. In September 2008, Duxbury published a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) pursuant to G.L. 30B for a five-year contract to operate North Hill. Johnson was then the manager of North Hill. Calm and Johnson bid for the contract. In December 2008, and for reasons not relevant here, Duxbury rejected all bids. On December 12, 2008, Johnson sued Duxbury in this Court (Middlesex Superior Court) in Johnson Golf v. Town of Duxbury, et al., 08-04641, arising from the bid process (“the Johnson Litigation”). On January 8, 2009, the Court in the Johnson Litigation issued a temporary restraining order requiring that “Johnson Golf Management Inc., shall continue to manage the North Hill Country Club Golf Course until such time as defendant Town of Duxbury has awarded a new management contract pursuant to G.L. c. 30B rebidding process that is to begin on January 9, 2009 or until further order of the Court.” On or about January 9, 2009, Duxbury issued a second RFP […]