GRSM Secures Complete Defense Verdict for Property Management Client in Decade-Long Lawsuit

The case stemmed from a dispute over the plaintiff’s residential property in Hingham, Massachusetts. The plaintiff executed a promissory note and granted a mortgage to a non-party entity. The note was secured by a $600,000 mortgage that encumbered the homeowner’s property. Following a series of assignments, the property management company held a first mortgage and the promissory note.

In 2011, the property management company attempted to proceed with the foreclosure of the property. The plaintiff filed a bankruptcy proceeding and challenged the foreclosure. The parties ultimately executed a settlement agreement to resolve the dispute. Although the plaintiff owed the company more than $800,000, the company offered to sell the property back to the plaintiff for $325,000 if she obtained funding prior to a specified deadline. The plaintiff failed to secure funding and did not purchase the property prior to the deadline designated in the settlement agreement. The property management company, therefore, proceeded with foreclosure and eviction.

In 2015, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the property management company. She alleged that the company wrongfully interfered with her ability to secure funding and prevented her from repurchasing the property. She also alleged that the company discarded “priceless” antiques during the eviction. The plaintiff asserted claims for alleged violations of M.G.L. c. 93A; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and unfair debt collection practices.

The property management company’s general counsel initially defended against the claims and successfully obtained the dismissal of the claims. On appeal, however, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the order and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with her lawsuit.

Due to an unusual procedural background, the parties litigated the dispute for more than ten years. Therefore, at trial, the property management company risked exposure to 120% statutory interest on any verdict. The company also faced exposure to treble damages and payment of the plaintiff’s legal fees. Prior to trial, the plaintiff refused to consider any settlement below $500,000.

Three months prior to trial, the company recognized that its general counsel was a necessary trial witness and could not continue to represent them. The company chose to retain GRSM to defend the claims at trial. Once retained, GRSM immediately filed a motion for summary judgment. Through this motion, the GRSM legal team successfully eliminated the plaintiff’s claim for unfair debt collection practices. The remaining claims proceeded to trial.

During the three-day trial, the plaintiff claimed more than $2 million in damages related to her emotional distress and the loss of her property. Orlando elicited testimony from the homeowner, GRSM’s client, and the client’s former general counsel. He established that the client did not prevent the plaintiff from obtaining financing to repurchase the property and did not interfere with the plaintiff’s ability to repurchase her property. On the contrary, the client and its general counsel worked diligently to help the homeowner regain her home.

At the close of evidence, Orlando filed a motion for a directed verdict. The court granted the motion with respect to the M.G.L. c. 93A claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to serve the client with a demand for relief prior to filing suit. GRSM subsequently secured a defense verdict on the remaining claims.

Wilker played a pivotal role throughout the trial, drafting several critical motions that contributed to the defense’s success, including a successful motion to limit the scope of compensable damages. The motion prevented the plaintiff from alleging that the client unintentionally discarded a “priceless” antique violin during the eviction.