Grantham | Cencarik, PC: Distinguished Cases

Case: McMillen v. Kadis

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court
Adversarial Proceeding

Our Client: Defendant, M. Kadis

Outcome: Judgment for the Defendant. After trial, Mr. McMillen was found in violation of the lease agreement. The sale to Mr. Kadis was upheld and Mr. Kadis was awarded damages for unpaid rent.

Claims: Breach of Contract, Fraud, Rescission

Case Summary: :Raymond McMillen, who was in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, sold his home to Mr. Kadis. Mr. McMillen rented the house back from Mr. Kadis and maintained an option to purchase during the lease period for fair market value. The value of the property increased and instead of exercising his option to purchase, Mr. McMillen sued Mr. Kadis to invalidate the sale. Mr. Kadis filed a counterclaim against Mr. McMillen for his failure to pay rent.

Case: Mui v. Delvecchio et. al.

Court: Essex Superior Court

Our Client: Defendant, Mrs. Delvecchio

Outcome: Summary Judgment for Mrs. Delvecchio: the court held that the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence to suggest that Mrs. Delvecchio actually participated in the construction of the retaining wall, therefore she could not be negligent. Moreover, a statement that "this is a good house" is a statement of opinion and cannot be considered fraud.

Claims: Negligent Construction, Fraud

Case Summary: :Mrs. Delvecchio had a home built on property she owned and her husband acted as the general contractor. There was a large retaining wall that was located at the back of the property. Three years after the home was built, Mrs. Delvecchio sold it to the plaintiffs. A few years later, the retaining wall on the property collapsed. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Mrs. Delvecchio alleging that she negligently constructed the retaining wall and that she committed fraud by telling them that "this is a good house" when the plaintiffs purchased the house.

Case: Garcia v. Concept One Remodeling, Inc and William E. Cimbrelo

Court:: Middlesex Superior Court

Our Client: Plaintiff, Garcia

Outcome: $57,000 judgment for the Plaintiff.

Claims: Breach of Contract, Fraud

Case Summary: Represented homeowners against a home improvement contractor company, its officer/shareholder, and others concerning a home improvement scam that involved a classic “hit and run” scheme. It was established that over approximately $47,000.00 was taken from the homeowners, and the only work actually performed was the demolition of several rooms of the home. The contractor left the job site in a demolished state, refused to pay back the $47,000.00, and filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After obtaining relief from the automatic stay in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Boston, our clients filed suit in the Middlesex Superior Court to hold the owner/operator of the corporation liable for the contracting scheme. It was discovered that the owner of the company had deposited checks payable to the corporation to his personal account, and had established a new contracting company. We obtained a judgment for our clients against the involved parties, and a damage award that included all monies paid to the contractor, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.

Case: Case Name Withheld

Court:: Bristol Superior Court

Our Client: Plaintiff

Outcome: Settled- We were able to achieve recession of the entire transaction (the sale was canceled.)   Our client was also compensated for his attorney’s fees and relieved of the financial liability associated with the mortgage loan.  Moreover, we were able to remove all negative reporting on our client’s credit report. 

Claims: Fraud, Rescission

Case Summary: We represented a home buyer who purchased a new construction home located in Bristol County, Massachusetts. It was discovered that the builder had a close association with the mortgage broker. In a collusive effort to help the builder close before his construction loans became due, the mortgage broker forged signatures of the home buyer, misrepresented the income and liabilities of the home buyer on the mortgage application, and failed to make the necessary pre-closing disclosures. The mortgage broker who also served as the real estate listing agent profited significantly from this transaction. The mortgage lender and closing attorney permitted the closing of the new home without a certificate of occupancy, and proper town inspections and the buyer was not permitted to inspect the property prior to closing. The lender and closing attorney also failed to provide the buyer with an accurate Truth in Lending Disclosure and the HUD-1 settlement statement that revealed several disguised “kickbacks” to the mortgage broker.