10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

RICHARD P. BROWN & another [Note 1] vs.

BARRY H. GERSTEIN & another. [Note 2]
17 Mass. App. Ct. 558
December 14, 1983 March 5, 1984
Essex County
Present: BROWN, GREANEY, & WARNER, JJ.
Plaintiffsseekingdamagesfromtheirformerattorneyfornegligentlyfailingtobringanaction
toenjoinaforeclosureproceedingagainstthempresentednoevidencetendingtoshowthat
theforeclosurewouldnothaveoccurrediftheactionhadbeenbrought,and,thus,thatthe
attorney'snegligencecausedtheminjury.[565]
Plaintiffsseekingtorecoverdamagesforthenegligenceoftheattorneytheyhadengagedto
bringsuitagainstabanktoenjoinmortgageforeclosureproceedingsonaparcelofcommercial
realestateownedbythemcouldnotprevailonthetheorythattheattorneywasnegligentin
failingtoadvisethemonotheractionstheymighttaketoavoidforeclosureonthemortgage,in
theabsenceofexperttestimonythatanattorneywhoseemploymentwasthuslimitedwould
undertaketogiveadviceonthissubject.[565566]
Evidenceinanactionbyclientsagainsttheirformerattorney,whomtheyhadretainedtobring
anactiontoenjoinmortgageforeclosureproceedingsagainstthem,wouldhavewarrantedthe
juryinfindingthattheattorneyknowinglymadefalserepresentationsofmaterialfacttothe
effectthattheforeclosuresalewouldnottakeplace,thattheplaintiffsexpresslyreliedon
theserepresentations,andthat,hadtheybeentoldthetruth,theywouldhavesoughttoavoid
aforcedsalebypursuingotheralternatives.[566567]
Evidenceinanactionbyclientsagainsttheirformerattorneywouldhavewarrantedthejuryin
findingthattheplaintiffshadsufficientfundstodischargeamortgageonrealpropertyowned
bythembutthat,asaresultoftheattorney'sdeceit,theywerepreventedfromdoingso.[567
568]
Page559

Inthecircumstancesofanactionbyformerclientsallegingdeceitbytheirattorney,the
practiceoflawconstituted"tradeorcommerce"forpurposesoftheattorney'sliabilityunderG.
L.c.93A,theConsumerProtectionAct.[569570]
Lessorsofcommercialproperty,whoretainedanattorneytocommenceanactiontoenjointhe
foreclosureofamortgageontheproperty,wereactinginabusinesscontext,andthus
engagingin"tradeorcommerce"withinthemeaningofG.L.c.93A,Section11.[570571]
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

1/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Inacivilactionbyaformerclientagainstanattorney,derivativeliabilityofasecondattorney
onthebasisofpartnershipbyestoppelwasnotestablishedeitherbythefactthattheclient
had,someyearsearlier,paidforlegalservicesinanapparentlyunrelatedmatterbymeansofa
checkpayabletobothattorneys,orbythesecondattorney'sknowledgethatbothattorneys'
namesappearedtogetherontheofficestationery.[571572]
CIVILACTIONcommencedintheSuperiorCourtonSeptember19,1977.
ThecasewastriedbeforeO'Leary,J.,aDistrictCourtjudgesittingunderstatutoryauthority.
JohnD.Dwyerfortheplaintiffs.
ErikLundforthedefendants.

GREANEY,J.Theplaintiffs'amendedcomplaintsoughttorecoverdamagesfrom
thedefendants,bothlawyers,onallegations(1)thatGersteinhadcommitted
malpracticeinrepresentingtheminconnectionwithasuittorestrainamortgage
foreclosure(2)thathisconductalsoviolatedG.L.c.93Aand(3)thatWeiner,
whopracticedlawwithGerstein,wasderivativelyliableforGerstein'sactionsashis
"partnerbyestoppel."Thecommonlawclaimsweretriedtoajurythec.93A
claimtothejudge.SeeNeiv.Burley,388Mass.307,311315(1983).Atthe
conclusionoftheplaintiffs'casethejudgeallowedamotionfiledbythedefendants
onthec.93Aclaimcaptioned"MotionforDirectedVerdict."[Note3]Thejury
returnedaverdictinthe
Page560

amountof$15,000fortheplaintiffs,whichthejudgesetasideonthedefendants'
motionforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdict.Mass.R.Civ.P.50(b),365Mass.
814815(1974).Theplaintiffshaveappealedfromthejudgmententeredforthe
defendants.WereversethejudgmentforGersteinandorderanewtrialas
hereinaftersetout.WeaffirmthejudgmentforWeiner.
Indecidingwhetherthejudgeactedproperlyinenteringjudgmentnotwithstanding
theverdictonthecommonlawclaims,weapplythestandardapplicabletoa
motionfordirectedverdict.D'Annolfov.StonehamHousingAuthy.,375Mass.650,
657(1978).MoranTravelBureau,Inc.v.Clair,12Mass.App.Ct.864(1981).This
testfocusesonwhether"anywhereintheevidence,fromwhateversourcederived,
anycombinationofcircumstancescouldbefoundfromwhichareasonable
inferencecouldbedrawninfavoroftheplaintiff."Raunelav.HertzCorp.,361
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

2/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Mass.341,343(1972),quotingfromKellyv.RailwayExp.Agency,Inc.,315Mass.
301,302(1943).Milesv.EdwardO.Tabor,M.D.,Inc.,387Mass.783,785786
(1982).
Viewingtheevidenceinthislight,weconcludethatthejurycouldhavefoundthe
following.[Note4]In1975,theplaintiffsownedaparcelofcommercialpropertyin
Wenhamwhichtheyhadpurchasedin1967.Theparcelcontainedabuilding,a
majorpartofwhichwasleasedtoRichdaleDairyStores,Inc.,fortheoperationofa
conveniencestore,andthebalanceofwhichwasrentedtoasecondstoreundera
tenancyatwill.Inthesummerof1974,themortgageeontheproperty,Danvers
SavingsBank(bank),claimedadefaultinthemortgage,anassertionwhichthe
plaintiffscontested.TheyconsultedGerstein,and,atGerstein'srequestwrotea
letterdetailingtohimtheirdisputewiththebank.[Note5]InJanuary,1975,the
plaintiffsformallyretained
Page561

Gerstein"tobringsuitagainstthe...bankforbreachofcontract"basedonthe
bank'sallegedmishandlingoftheirloan.[Note6]Gersteinadvisedtheplaintiffs
"nottohaveanythingtodowiththe[bankbecause]...hewouldhandle
everything."
ByletterdatedApril18,1975,thebanknotifiedtheplaintiffsthatitsboardof
investmenthadvotedtocommenceforeclosure,thatfuturepaymentsontheloan
wouldnotbeaccepted,andthattheplaintiffswouldbeliableforanydeficiency
resultingafterforeclosure.Gersteinassuredtheplaintiffs"nottoworryabout[the
notice]...[t]hathewouldtakecareofeverything[a]ndthathewasdrawingup
paperstofileagainstthebank."
ShortlyafterJune13,1975,theplaintiffsreceivedfromthebank'sattorneysa
copyoftheorderofnoticeissuedbytheSuperiorCourtonthebank'scomplaintto
foreclosethemortgage.Gersteinalsoreceivedacopyofthisnoticeandagain
assuredtheplaintiffs"nottoworry...thatit[theforeclosure]wouldn'thappen
[because]hewouldtakecareofeverything."
OnJuly30,1975,theplaintiffsreceivedwrittennoticeadvisingthemthata
foreclosuresalewouldbeheldonorafterSeptember3,1975,andthattheywould
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

3/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

beliableforanyresultingdeficiency.TheBrownspromptlybroughtthisnoticeto
Gerstein'sattention.Gersteinadvisedthemthatanamendedcomplaintwasbeing
prepared,[Note7]andmadenomentionofanyproblems.
Page562

OnAugust1,1975,theplaintiffssignedandsworetoanamendedcomplaint.This
complaintallegedthatthebankwassolelyresponsibleforthemortgagedefault,
andthatithadimproperlyrefusedtoallowtheplaintiffstocurethedefault.The
complaintsoughtpreliminaryinjunctiverelieftoenjointheforeclosureaswellasan
accountinganddamages.Gersteintoldtheplaintiffsthathewouldfilethe
complaintintheSuperiorCourt.Shortlythereafterheadvisedtheplaintiffsthathe
hadinfactfiledthecomplaintandthat"therewouldbenoforeclosure."The
plaintiffsreliedontheseassurances.Gersteinneverfiledthecomplaint.Hedidnot
telltheplaintiffsthatithadnotbeenfiledorthatneitheratemporaryrestraining
ordernoraninjunctionwouldbeappliedfor.
OnAugust15,1975,theplaintiffsreceivedacopyofthebank'slegal
advertisementoftheforeclosuresalewhichhadbeenpublishedinalocal
newspaper.Thisnoticesettheforeclosuresaleat2:00P.M.onSeptember3,1975.
ThenoticewasimmediatelybroughttoGerstein'sattention.Gersteinadvisedthe
Brownsthat"everythingwasbeingheldinabeyance"and"thattherewouldbeno
foreclosure."OnAugust28,1975,RichardBrownmetGerstein.Heagaintold
Brownthat"therewasn'tgoingtobeanyauctionsaleandthathe(Gerstein)might
...haveacustomerfortheproperty."Theserepresentationswerefalse.[Note8]
The
Page563

propertywassoldtoathirdpartyatforeclosureauctiononSeptember3,1975,for
$62,000withouttheplaintiffs'knowledge.
Whentheplaintiffsdiscoveredthatthepropertyhadbeensoldtheyconfronted
Gerstein,whothentoldthemthathehadhada"deal"withthebank'sattorney,
seenote8,supra,andthatthislawyerhad"doublecrossedhim."Gerstein
recommendedthattheplaintiffsfileanimmediatesuitagainstthebankandits
counselandassuredtheBrownsthathewouldappearasawitnessontheirbehalf
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

4/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

atthetrial.Tothisend,Gersteindirectedtheplaintiffstoanotherlawyerinhis
office.Thislawyerpreparedyetanothercomplaintagainstthebank.This
complaint,seekingdamages,accusedthebankofbadfaithandrepeatedthe
substanceoftheamendedcomplaintwithonedifferenceitcontainedanassertion
thatatthetimeoftheforeclosuresale"theplaintiffswere...financiallyunableto
purchasetheproperty."[Note9]Theplaintiffsreviewedthecomplaintandsworeto
itscontents.Theattorney,however,declinedtorepresenttheplaintiffsafter
receivinginformationfromthebank'scounselwhichmadeitdoubtfulthatthe
plaintiffscouldprevailattrial.Asaresult,thecomplaintwasneverfiledandthe
lawyerterminatedhisrelationshipwiththeplaintiffsaftertellingthemthathehad
returnedtheirfiletoGerstein.
TherewastestimonythatGersteinneveradvisedtheplaintiffsofoptionstoprevent
foreclosure.[Note10]Thejudgeexcludedtestimony,preservedbyaproperoffer
ofproof,thathadtheBrownsknownthatGersteinhadnotfiledthecomplaint
Page564

andthattheforeclosuresalewouldtakeplace,theywouldhavesoughttoavoid
thesaleby:(1)engaginganotherattorneytofilesuitandseekaninjunctionona
differenttheoryoflaw,[Note11](2)curingthedefaultbypayingthearrearage,
[Note12](3)attemptingtosellthepropertyortorefinancethedebtwithanother
lender,(4)attendingtheforeclosuresalewiththerequireddepositeitherto
purchasethepropertyortobidituptofullmarketvalue,or(5)dischargingthe
mortgagebypayingtheentireindebtedness.Therewasfurthertestimonythatthe
plaintiffshadfunds,independentofborrowing,whichcouldhavebeenusedfor
thesepurposes.ThesefundswerecontainedintwotrustsforthebenefitofAnn
Brown.Thefirstwasapersonaltrustcontainingabout$30,000,thetermsofwhich
permittedpaymentsofprincipaltoAnnBrowninthesolediscretionofthetrustees.
Thesecondwasatestamentarytrust,containingabout$70,000.AnnBrowncould
obtainprincipalfromthelattertrust"asshedeem[ed]advisable."Theannual
incomefromthetestamentarytrustaveraged$4,000.Inadditiontotheassetsof
thetrusts,therewastestimonythattheplaintiffshadsubstantialequityintheir
home.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

5/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Afewotherfactsarerelevanttothediscussionofthecommonlawclaims.The
measureofdamageswasstipulatedtobethedifferencebetweenthe$62,000paid
bythe
Page565

buyerattheforeclosuresaleandthefairmarketvalueofthepremises.Therewas
evidencewhichwouldhavewarrantedafindingthat,onSeptember3,1975,the
premiseshadafairmarketvalueofatleast$100,000.Thejudgeconsideredthe
commonlawmalpracticeclaimsassolelylimitedtoGerstein'snegligenceinfailing
tofiletheamendedcomplaint.Onthishypothesis,thejudgeinstructedthejury
thattheplaintiffscouldrecoveronlyiftheyfoundthataninjunctioncouldhave
beenobtainedonthefactsallegedintheamendedcomplaint,decliningtoputto
thejurythequestionwhetherGersteinwasliablefordeceit.
1.Wefirstconsiderthecommonlawclaimsofmalpractice.Itisconcededthatan
attorneyclientrelationshipexistedbetweenGersteinandtheBrownsandthat
Gersteinwasnegligentinfailingtofiletheamendedcomplaint.Wearesatsified
thatthejudgeproperlyrejectedtheplaintiffs'claimthattheforeclosurewouldhave
beenenjoinedforthereasonsstatedinhismemorandumonthemotionfor
judgmentn.o.v.Inthatmemorandum,thejudgepointedoutthattheplaintiffshad
toestablishthatthey"wouldhavesucceededintheunderlyinglitigationbutforthe
attorney'snegligenceinnotbringingsuit."SeeMcLellanv.Fuller,226Mass.374,
378(1917)Gliddenv.Terranova,12Mass.App.Ct.597,600(1981).Hecorrectly
concludedthattheplaintiffshadnotpresentedanyevidencefromwhichthejury
couldfindthatthevariousassertionsofwrongdoingonthepartofthebankwere
trueandthattheplaintiffswouldhavesucceededinenjoiningtheforeclosuresale.
Asaconsequence,therewasnoevidencewhichwouldwarrantafindingthat
Gerstein'sfailuretofiletheamendedcomplaintproximatelycausedtheplaintiffs
anydamage.
Theplaintiffsargue,however,thatGersteinwasnegligentbecausehefailedto
advisethemofalternativestoavoidforeclosure(andinthecaseoftheremedy
allegedlyprovidedbyG.L.c.244,Section22,becausehefailedtofindandplead
thatstatute),andthatGersteinwasliablefordeceit.Becauseofthisconduct,the

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

6/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Brownsclaimtheywereunabletotakeactionwhichwouldhavesavedtheir
property.The
Page566

defendantsargue,ontheotherhand,thatthejudgeproperlykeptthesetheories
fromthejurybecause(1)Gersteinwashiredonlytoprepare,fileandtrythe
amendedcomplaintandnottogivegeneraladviceonotheravenuesthatmight
preventforeclosure,(2)inanyevent,experttestimonywasnecessarytoestablish
thatalawyerinGerstein'spositionwouldhavegivenadviceaboutsuch
alternatives,(3)deceitwasneverpleadedandtried,and(4)therewasinsufficient
proofthatifanyofthealternativeshadbeenpursued,theforeclosurecouldhave
beenavoided.
WethinktheplaintiffscannotprevailontheirtheorythatGersteinwasnegligentin
failingtoadvisethemoftheoptionstoavoidforeclosure,seenote10,supra.The
onlyevidenceconcerningthescopeofGerstein'semploymentconfinedhis
representationto"bring[ing]suitagainstthe...bankforbreachofcontract."
Whetheralawyerwhoseemploymentwassolimitedwouldundertaketogivehis
clientgeneraladviceaboutwaystoavoidforeclosurewasasubjectrequiringexpert
testimonyinaccordancewiththerulethat"experttestimonyisgenerallynecessary
toestablishthestandardofcareowedbyanattorneyintheparticular
circumstancesandthedefendant'sallegeddeparturefromit."Gliddenv.Terranova,
12Mass.App.Ct.at598.Wealsothinktheplaintiffscouldnotrecoveronthe
theorythatGersteinfailedtodiscoverorpleadG.L.c.244,Section22.That
statuteisbeyondtheunderstandingoflaypeopleandexperttestimonywas
necessarytoestablishthatalawyerinGerstein'spositionshouldhavediscovered
thestatuteand,ifhehad,thatitcouldhavebeenusedtoobtainaninjunction.
[Note13]Whathasbeensaidsofareliminatesthevariousnegligencetheories
fromthecase.
Thisdoesnotendthematter,however,becausewemustconsiderwhetherthe
evidencewassufficienttoholdGerstein
Page567

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

7/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

liablefordeceit.[Note14]"Fraudordeceit...isnomoreanecessaryincidentto
therenditionoflegalservicesthandishonestyistoanyotherprofession.The
avoidanceoffraudulentconductrequiresnospecialskillorknowledge,butonly
basicpreceptsofhonestyandintegrity.Whencommittedbyanattorney,thetortof
fraudordeceitisdeterminedbyessentiallythesamerulesthatapplytoany
defendant,regardlessofwhetherheisaprofessional."Mallen&Levit,Legal
MalpracticeSection107(2ded.1981).SeeS.J.C.Rule3:07,DR1102(A)(4),as
appearingin382Mass.769,770(1981)("Alawyershallnot...[e]ngagein
conductinvolvingdishonesty,fraud,deceit,ormisrepresentation").Herethejury
couldhavepermissiblyfoundthatGersteinhadknowinglymadefalse
representationsofmaterialfacttotheeffectthattheforeclosuresalewouldnot
takeplace,thattheBrownshadexpresslyreliedontheserepresentations,andthat
hadtheBrownsbeentoldthetruth,theywouldhavesoughttoavoidaforcedsale
bypursuingotheralternatives.
2.Wethencometothequestionwhetheranydamageresultedfromthedeceit.
SeeSzpirov.Corkin,340Mass.260,262(1960)Mallen&Levit,LegalMalpractice
Section107,at185(2ded.1981).Wehavealreadyconcludedthattheplaintiffs
cannotprevailonthetheorythattheyweredeniedrecoursetoG.L.c.244,
Section22.Wealsoconcludethatcausationwasnotestablishedwithrespectto
paymentofthearrearages,[Note15]
Page568

sale,orremortgageoftheproperty,[Note16]andthepossiblepurchaseofthe
propertybybiddingattheforeclosuresale.[Note17]Theplaintiffs'proof,however,
wassufficienttowarrantajuryinconcludingthattheycouldhavepaidoffthe
entiremortgagehadtheyknownthatthesalewasgoingtooccur.Onthisissue,
thejurycouldhavefoundthattheplaintiffshadfundsavailabletoAnnBrownina
testamentarytrustwhichshecouldhavewithdrawnwithoutrestriction.Thejury
couldhavealsofoundthattheamountofavailablemoneyinthattrustwas
sufficienttodischargethemortgageloan.[Note18]Weconcludethattheplaintiffs
shouldhavebeenallowedtogotothejuryonthetheorythatGerstein'sdeceithad
causeddamage(themeasureofwhichwasstipulated)bypreventingthemfrom
payingofftheentiremortgageindebtedness.[Note19]
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

8/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Page569

3.Wenexttakeuptheplaintiffs'assertionthatthejudgeerredinthedispositionof
theirclaimunderG.L.c.93A.Theplaintiffsconcedethattheycouldnotrecover
underSection9ofc.93Abecausenodemandletterwassenttothedefendants.
SeeSlaneyv.WestwoodAuto,Inc.,366Mass.688,704(1975)Entrialgov.Twin
CityDodgeInc.,368Mass.812,813(1975).Theyargue,however,thatthe
evidenceofdeceitwassufficienttowarrantfindingsthatGersteinhadviolated
Section2(a)ofc.93A,insertedbySt.1967,c.813,Section1,andthattheycould
recoverfortheviolationunderSection11ofc.93A,insertedbySt.1972,c.614,
Section2.Thejudgeappears,however,tohaveruled,asmatteroflaw,thatsuch
Page570

anactioncouldnotbemaintainedbecausetheattorneyclientrelationshipdoesnot
involve"tradeorcommerce"withinthemeaningofthosewordsinSections2(a)
and11.Thedefendantsurgethatthisrulingbeupheld,relyingprincipallyonthe
lineofcasesdecidedunderbothSection9andSection11ofc.93Awhichexclude
essentiallyprivatetransactionsfromthestatute'sapplication.SeeLantnerv.
Carson,374Mass.606,611(1978)Manningv.Zuckerman,388Mass.8(1983)
Weeksv.HarborNatl.Bank,388Mass.141(1983)Newtonv.Moffie,13Mass.
App.Ct.462(1982).
IndecidingwhetherGerstein'sallegedwrongdoingsoccurredwithintheconductof
tradeorcommerceasrequiredbySection2(a)ofc.93A,wefindthedecisionof
Guenardv.Burke,387Mass.802,808811(1982),controlling.[Note20]Guenard
heldthataclaimagainstanattorneybyhisclientfordamagesinconnectionwith
theattorney'sexecutionofanunlawfulcontingentfeeagreementcouldbe
maintainedunderG.L.c.93A,Sections2(a)and9.Thedecisionfurtherheld(at
809)thattheattorney'srelianceontheillegalagreementforhisfeeconstituted,as
matteroflaw,anunfairordeceptiveactprohibitedbyc.93A,Section2(a),and
thattheviolationentitledtheplaintifftopressherclaimsformultipledamages,
attorney'sfees,andcosts.
WhiletheissueraisedhereisnotexpresslydiscussedinGuenard,thatdecisionin
straightforwardfashionappliesc.93Atotheattorneyclientrelationship.We
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

9/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

considerGuenardtobeauthorityforthepropositionthatincircumstanceslike
thoseherepresentthepracticeoflawconstitutes"tradeorcommerce"for
purposesofliabilityunderc.93A.We,therefore,proceednofurthertoponderthe
relevanceoftheprivateactiondecisionstoc.93Aclaimsarisingoutofthe
attorneyclientrelationship.
Thequestionwhethertheplaintiffswereengagedintradeorcommerce(a
prerequisitetorecoveryunderSection11),[Note21]
Page571

wasoneforthejudgeasthetrieroffact.Theevidencewarrantedafindingthatthe
plaintiffsaslessorsofcommercialproperty(andperhapsascommercialclientsof
Gerstein)wereactinginabusinesscontextandthusengagingin"tradeor
commerce."SeeLinthicumv.Archambault,379Mass.381,387(1979).Seealso
Begelferv.Najarian,381Mass.177,190191(1980)Lynnv.Nashawaty,12
Mass.App.Ct.310,313314(1981)(identifyinganddefininga"businesscontext"
testtodeterminewhetheraparticulartransactionconstitutestradeorcommerce
underSection11).TheevidencealsowarrantedafindingthatGerstein'sdeceit
constitutedunfairordeceptiveconductproscribedbytheact.[Note22]We
concludethatthec.93Aclaimshouldhavebeenconsideredonitsmerits.
4.Wereachtheplaintiffs'argumentthat,underthedoctrineofpartnershipby
estoppel,WeinerisliabletothesameextentasGerstein.[Note23]
Thecommonlawdoctrineofpartnershipbyestoppeliscodifiedforthe
CommonwealthinG.L.c.108A,Section16.SeeStandardOilCo.v.Henderson,
265Mass.322,326(1928).TheHendersoncaseestablishesthattoprevailunder
thisdoctrineaplaintiffmustprove:(1)thatthewouldbepartnerhasheldhimself
outasapartner(2)thatsuchholdingoutwasdonebythedefendantdirectlyor
withhisconsent(3)thattheplaintiffhadknowledgeofsuchholdingoutand(4)
thattheplaintiffreliedontheostensiblepartnershiptohisprejudice.Ibid.Seealso
Reuschlein&Gregory,AgencyandPartnershipSection198(1979)Crane&
Bromberg,PartnershipSection36(1968)RowleyonPartnership423436(2ded.
1960)Painter,PartnershipbyEstoppel16Vand.L.Rev.327(1963).Failureto
establishanyoftheserequirementsprecludesrecoveryonanestoppeltheory.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

10/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Page572

InsettingasidetheverdictagainstWeiner,thejudgeconcludedthattheevidence
wasinsufficienttosatisfythesecondrequirement,viz.,thatanyholdingoutwas
donedirectlybyWeinerorwithhisconsent.Onthisissue,therewasevidencethat
onOctober16,1972,theBrownshadmadeacheckpayableto"Gersteinand
Weiner"(apparentlyforlegalservicesunrelatedtotheinstantcase)whichwas
depositedin"GersteinandWeinerclients'account"thatin1975,inconnection
withthependingforeclosure,theplaintiffsmadeoutaretainercheckinthe
amountof$150payabletoGersteinalonethattheplaintiffsthereafterreceived
lettersfromGersteinonstationerybearingthelegend"GersteinandWeiner"and
thatGersteintestifiedinhisdepositionthatWeinerknewthathe(Gerstein)was
usingGersteinandWeinerstationery.Therewasnoevidencethattheplaintiffsever
metWeinerorthatWeinerrenderedanylegalservicesontheirbehalf.
Thejudge'sconclusionwascorrect.Theevidenceconcerningthe1972checkand
theaccountinwhichitwasdepositedisirrelevanttoestablishconsentin
connectionwiththe1975transactionsbeforeus.Itisofsignificancethatthe1975
retainercheckwasmadepayabletoGersteinalone.Hencetheplaintiffs'proofon
consentcamedowntoWeiner'sknowledgethathisnamewasbeingusedonthe
officestationery.TheHendersondecision(at326)establishes,however,thatthe
useofaperson'snameinabusiness,evenwiththatperson'sknowledge,istoo
slenderathreadtowarrantafavorablefindingontheconsentelement.Seealso
Josephv.GreaterNewGuideBaptistChurch,Inc.,194So.2d127,130(La.App.
1966).SeegenerallyMallen&Levit,LegalMalpracticeSection33(2ded.1981).
Weinerwasentitledtojudgmentinhisfavor.
5.Twoissuesthatmayariseuponretrialmaybedisposedofsummarily.
(a)Althoughtheattorneyclientrelationshipisessentiallycontractualinnature,the
claimstoberetried(deceitandc.93A)basicallysoundintort.Consequently,ifthe
plaintiffsprevailafterretrial,interestonanysumrecoveredshouldbecomputedin
accordancewithG.L.c.231,Section6B.
Page573

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

11/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

(b)Retrialofthecasewillfollowtheusualjudicialassignmentproceduresinthe
SuperiorCourt.
6.Tosumup:Thereistobeanewtriallimitedto(a)whetherGerstein'sconduct
constituteddeceitwhichpreventedtheplaintiffsfrompayingthebank'smortgage
infulland(b)whetherGerstein'sdeceitviolatedG.L.c.93A,Sections2(a)and11.
OnthebalanceoftheclaimsagainstGerstein,theplaintiffshavefailedintheir
proof,astheyalsohaveontheirclaimofderivativeliabilityonWeiner'spart.
ThejudgmentinsofarasitdisposesoftheclaimsagainstthedefendantGerstein
exceptthoseidentifiedaboveisaffirmed.ThebalanceofthejudgmentforGerstein
isreversedandanewtrialorderedconsistentwiththisopinion.Thejudgment
insofarasitrelatestothedefendantWeinerisaffirmed.
Soordered.

FOOTNOTES
[Note1]Hiswife,AnnE.Brown.
[Note2]RobertE.Weiner.
[Note3]Themotion,despiteitslabel,wasamotionfiledunderMass.R.Civ.P.41(b)(2),
365Mass.804(1974).Thejudge'sallowanceofthemotionappearstohavebeen
basedonarulingthattheattorneyclientrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffsand
Gersteinwasnot,asmatteroflaw,withinthescopeofG.L.c.93A.Thisaspectofthe
caseisdiscussedinpart3ofthisopinion.
[Note4]WerecountherethefactsthatthejurycouldhavefoundagainstGerstein,
leavinguntillatertheevidencepertinenttotheclaimsagainstWeiner.
[Note5]ThesedifficultiesstemmedprincipallyfromadisagreementwithRichdaleover
theparties'respectiveobligationsunderthelease.Richdalehadpaidaonethirdshare
ofthefuelbillsowedbytheBrownsanddeductedthatamountfromrentdueunderthe
lease.Richdalealsomadeextensiverepairstotheleasedpropertyanddeductedthe
costoftherepairsfromtherent,claimingthattheplaintiffshadwrongfullyrefused,
afternotice,tomaketherepairs.Therenthadbeenassignedtothebankascollateral
securityforthemortgage.TheplaintiffsclaimedthatRichdale'sdiversionoftherent
causedthedefaultinthemortgagepayments.
[Note6]Atthistime,theplaintiffspaidGersteinaretainerbycheckandagreedwith
himthattheywouldbebilledperiodicallyatastipulatedhourlyrateforhisservices.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

12/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

[Note7]OnJuly14,1975,theplaintiffshadreceivedacopyofanoriginalcomplaint
preparedbyGerstein.Afterreviewingthiscomplaint,theplaintiffssuggestedsome
minorcorrectionsandreturnedittoGersteinforredrafting.
[Note8]OnSeptember2,1975,Gersteintelephonedthebank'sattorney,whohad
previouslystatedtoGersteinthatthebankdidnotprefertoforecloseandthatitwould
nothavetodosoiftheplaintiffswereabletosellthepropertyandpayoffthe
mortgage.Gersteinrepresentedtothebank'scounselthatapurchaseandsale
agreementhadbeenexecutedtosellthepropertyfor$85,000,thathewasholdinga
$5,000deposit,andthataseparatesideagreementhadbeenexecutedbytheplaintiffs
andthepurchaserforthesaleofthefixtures.Thebank'sattorneytoldGersteinto
deliveracopyofthepurchaseandsaleagreementtohimandindicatedthathewould
considerpostponingthenextday'sforeclosuresaleifeverythingappearedinorder.On
themorningofSeptember3,1975,Gersteindeliveredanunsignedpurchaseandsale
agreementtothislawyer'sofficeandahandwrittennotestating,"Iamholdingthe
$5,000deposit."Oninvestigation,counselforthebanklearnedthatnopurchaseand
saleagreementhadbeensignedandthatGerstein'srepresentationswerefalse.The
foreclosuresalewentforwardasscheduled.
[Note9]TheamendedcomplaintpreparedbyGersteindidnotcontainanexpress
allegationthattheplaintiffshadthemoneytopaythemortgagebutdidaverthat"
[w]henthe[p]laintiffsfinallyascertainedthestatusoftheiraccountandtheamountof
thedeficiency,itbecametoolateforthemtopaytheamountdue."
[Note10]Morespecifically,BrowntestifiedthatGersteindidnotadvisetheplaintiffs
thattheycould:(a)refinancethedebtwithanotherbank,(b)dischargethemortgage
bypaymentofthebalancedueonthenote,(c)reinstatethemortgagebypaymentof
thearrearages,or(d)applyforaninjunctiononatheoryoflawotherthanoneofthose
statedintheamendedcomplaint.
[Note11]Thealternatetheoryoflawrelieduponbytheplaintiffsconcernsthe
applicationofG.L.c.244,Section22.Theymaintainthatthisstatutepermittedthem
toobtainaninjunctionstoppingtheforeclosureasmatterofright.Theycontendthat
Gersteinwasnegligentinnotbringingthisstatutetotheirattentionorusingittoenjoin
thesale.TheyalsoclaimthatiftheyhaddischargedGersteinandretainedanother
lawyer,theirnewcounselwouldhaveinvokedthestatutetoobtainaninjunction.The
judgerefusedtotakejudicialnoticeofthestatuteortoadvisethejuryofitsprovisions.
[Note12]TherewasevidencethatthearrearagesasofApril18,1975,totaled
$1,636.85,andonthedateofthesale(September3,1975),totaled$5,127.35.The
principaldueonthemortgageonSeptember3,1975,wasapproximately$58,000.
Overtheplaintiffs'objection,thejudgeexcludeddepositiontestimonyofthedeceased
chiefmortgageofficerofthebankthatthebankwouldhaveacceptedpaymentofthe
arrearagesandreinstatedthemortgage.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

13/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

[Note13]Objectionstoquestionsbytheplaintiffs'counselwhichwereaimedat
elicitingsuchopinionsfromthelawyerforthebankwereproperlysustained(ifforno
otherreason)forlackofqualificationofthislawyerasanexpertandbecausethe
questioningonthesubjectexceededthelimitofpermissibleredirectexamination.
[Note14]Thereisnomerittothedefendant'scontentionthattheplaintiffsnever
pleadedortriedadeceitclaim.Paragraph12oftheamendedcomplaintbespeaksthis
claim,andtherecordleavesnodoubtthattheplaintiffs'evidenceraisedthetheory.
Moreover,theplaintiffsrequestedjuryinstructionsondeceit.Itwasthejudge's
obligationtoinstructthejurycorrectlyonthegeneralprinciplesoflawapplicabletothe
pleadingsandevidenceinthecase.Theparties'skirmishingoverwhether"fraud"was
involvedisbesidethepoint.Inthecontextofthiscase,theconceptsoffraudanddeceit
areinterchangeable.SeeNeiv.Burley,388Mass.307,310(1983).
[Note15]Therewasnoevidencethatthebank'sboardofinvestmentwouldhave
allowedtheBrownstocurethedefaultandcontinuepaymentsinthefuture.The
testimonyofthebank'schiefmortgageofficer,seenote12,supra,thatthebankwould
haveacceptedpaymentofthearrearageswasproperlyexcludedsincetherewasno
evidencethathewasauthorized,eitherexpresslyorimpliedly,totakeactioncontrary
tothedecisionsoftheboardofinvestment.SeeKanavosv.HancockBk.&TrustCo.,14
Mass.App.Ct.326,331(1982)Rubelv.Hayden,Harding&Buchanan,Inc.,15Mass.
App.Ct.252,254255(1983).
[Note16]Therewasnoevidencethatthatitwasprobablethatasaleorremortgage
couldhavebeensuccessfullyconsummatedintheshortperiodfacingtheplaintiffs.The
factthattheplaintiffshadnegotiatedaremortgagewiththebankaftertheyhad
defaultedonapreviousmortgagewithanotherbankwouldnotsupportaninferencethat
saleorremortgagewasalikelyprospect.Thisisparticularlysoinviewoftheplaintiffs'
debtsandotherencumbrancesontheproperty.Theplaintiffs'evidenceontheissue
thusassumedthesuccessoftheirgoalsanddidnotwarranttheseveralinferencesthey
nowurge"basedonprobabilitiesratherthanpossibilites."Alholmv.Wareham,371
Mass.621,627(1976).SeePoirierv.Plymouth,374Mass.206,212(1978).
[Note17]Inadditiontothepaymentofa$3,500deposit,theforeclosuresalewas
madesubjecttoothertermstobeannouncedatthesale.Therecordcontainsno
evidenceastowhatthesetermswereandnoevidencethattheplaintiffscouldhave
compliedwiththem.Theirproofonthisissueisthereforesubjecttothesameinfirmity
discussedinnote16,supra.
[Note18]Theevidencewasnotsufficienttowarrantafindingthattheplaintiffscould
havewithdrawnfundsfromthesmallerpersonaltrusttopaytheindebtednessinfull
sincetherewasnoevidencethatthetrusteesofthattrustwouldhaveexercisedtheir
discretiontopermitthewithdrawalofprincipalwhichwasnotenoughinanyeventto
satisfythewholeindebtedness.Therealsowasnoevidencethattheplaintiffscould
havesuccessfullyremortgagedtheirhomewithintheapplicabletimeconstraints.
http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

14/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

[Note19]ThedefendantsarguethattheBrownscannotrecoverfordeceitbecauseof
thedoctrineof"judicialestoppel".Thisargumentisbasedontheassertionthatthe
plaintiffssworetoacomplaint,preparedbyGerstein'sassociateaftertheforeclosure
sale,whichstatesthattheplaintiffswere,atthetimeofthesale,"financiallyunableto
purchasethe...property"anassertionatoddswiththeirtrialtestimony.Wearenot
persuadedbytheargument.
Whilethedoctrineofjudicialestoppelhasbeenrecognizedinvariouscontextsbythe
Federalcourts,seeKeystoneDrillerCo.v.GeneralExcavatorCo.,290U.S.240(1933)
HazelAtlasCo.v.HartfordEmpireCo.,322U.S.238(1944)Yeov.Cohen,6F.2d411
(D.Mass.1925)Hurdv.DiMento&Sullivan,440F.2d1322(1stCir.),cert.denied,
404U.S.862(1971)DuplanCorp.v.DeeringMillikenInc.,397F.Supp.1146(D.S.C.
1974)seegenerally1BMoore'sFederalPracticepar.0.405[8](2ded.1983),ithas
notyetbeenexpresslyrecognizedordefinedbythecourtsofthisCommonwealth.
CompareG.L.c.231,Section87(whichrendersallegationsoffactmadeinpleadings
actuallyfiledincourtjudicialadmissionsofthepartymakingthem).Evenifwewereto
recognizethedoctrine,itsapplicationwouldbeinappropriatehere.Thecomplaintwhich
isintendedtoserveasthefoundationforanestoppelwasneverfiledincourtor
otherwisemadeapartofanycourtproceedings.Weconcludethatthestatement
assertedtocreateanestoppelconstitutesnomorethananevidentiaryadmissionby
theplaintiffs,theweightofwhichmaybeaffectedbytestimonyexplainingthe
circumstancesunderwhichitwasmadeorcontradictingthefactsoughttobe
established.SeeStockbridgev.Mixer,227Mass.501,512(1917)Jordanv.
MacMelville,342Mass.478,480(1961).WenotetestimonybyRichardBrownthathe
didnotinstructanyonetoinserttheparagraphinthecomplaint,thathehadnothingto
dowiththestatement,andthatitwasinsertedatGerstein'sbehest.
Thedefendantsalsomakeavagueargumentthattheplaintiffsareprecludedbecause
theyneveradvisedGersteinthattheyhadthefinancialabilitytopayoffthemortgage.
Assumingthepointwouldhaverelevance,therewasnotestimonytosupportthe
allegedfact.
[Note20]TheGuenardcasewasdecidedafterthetrialofthiscase.
[Note21]Section11ofc.93A,unlikeSection9,requiresthattheplaintiffalsobea
"personwhoengagesin...tradeorcommerce."Section11doesnotrequireademand
letterasaprerequisitetosuit.
[Note22]Werejectthedefendants'contentionthattheGuenardcaseshouldbe
distinguishedonthebasisthatitinvolvesaviolationofethicalrules,henceamore
seriousinfractionthanthedeceitcomplainedofhere.Aspreviouslynoted,deceitalso
violatesalawyer'sethicalduty.
[Note23]TherewasnoevidencethatGersteinandWeinerweremembersofanactual
partnership.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

15/16

10/12/2016

BROWNvs.GERSTEIN,17Mass.App.Ct.558

Home/Search TableofCasesbyCitation TableofCasesbyName

CommonwealthofMassachusetts.TrialCourtLawLibraries.Questionsaboutlegalinformation?ContactReference
Librarians.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/17/17massappct558.html

16/16