Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Boston Partners Stephen Orlando and Shaun Loughlin successfully litigated an appeal before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, defending a summary judgment obtained on behalf of a real estate professional accused of tortious interference with contractual relations and violations of M.G.L. c. 93A.
The dispute involved the listing and sale of a residential property. The owners executed an exclusive listing agreement with the plaintiff, a prominent real estate brokerage. The owner subsequently attempted to terminate the agreement and retain the services of GRSM’s client, another real estate professional who maintained his own brokerage. The plaintiff alleged that GRSM’s client improperly interfered with the exclusive listing it had with the owners, in violation of applicable real estate rules and regulations, and that this conduct violated M.G.L. c. 93A. The plaintiff then sued both the owners and GRSM’s client.
The superior court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed, and the defendant real estate professional retained GRSM to handle the appeal.
Following oral argument, the appeals court affirmed the summary judgment ruling in its entirety. The appeals court agreed with GRSM’s argument that the tortious interference claim failed on the critical element of inducement. The record established that, before GRSM’s client became involved as the listing agent, the property owners had already decided to end their relationship with the plaintiff. The plaintiff also took steps consistent with ending that relationship, including removing its for-sale sign, marketing materials, and lock box and sending the owners a proposed release. As such, GRSM’s client could not have “induced” the owners to terminate their relationship with the plaintiff.
The appeals court also concluded that the evidence did not establish the improper motive or improper means necessary for a tortious interference claim. The court agreed that GRSM’s client relied upon credible representations from the owners, who informed the client that the owners had terminated their relationship with the plaintiff.
The decision is particularly noteworthy for its treatment of professional ethics rules and Chapter 93A. The court confirmed that an alleged violation of a professional code of ethics, standing alone, does not establish liability under Chapter 93A. Rather, the plaintiff was obligated to present additional evidence of unfair or deceptive conduct to establish a viable claim. The decision also highlights the GRSM Boston office’s continued successes at the appellate level, as the court’s opinion references case law previously established by Orlando in a prior appellate victory involving a tortious interference claim to support its decision.