|
Over the past year, we have served as counsel in over a dozen landlord-tenant cases. We have successfully handled several nonpayment cases for residential landlords, resulting in evictions or favorable settlements. We have also successfully represented clients in a number of more complex matters, including:
• commercial nonpayment eviction (landlord-side)
• post-foreclosure commercial eviction (landlord-side)
• post-foreclosure residential eviction (landlord-side)
• breach of quiet enjoyment and warranty of habitability
(tenant-side)
• early termination by tenants and violation of Security Deposit Law by landlord (tenant-side)
• negotiation on behalf of tenants in arrears
Our Client hired a moving company to transport her belongings between two apartments in Boston. During the move, the moving company lost several of her items, including a high-end racing bicycle. The moving company refused to reimburse our Client for her losses beyond the 60-cent per pound limit contained in her contract. We argued that the liability limitation clause in the contract did not apply to losses due to negligence, and that other practices engaged in by the moving company amounted to violations of the Consumer Protection Law (M.G.L. c. 93A). We successfully pierced the moving company's corporate veil, thus holding its owner personally liable, and we were awarded treble damages pursuant to 93A. Following our recording of an execution for judgment on real estate held by the moving company's owner, the moving company's insurer agreed to reimburse our Client for all losses.
A California specialist in restoration of vintage Mercedes-Benz 280SLs automobiles was sued by a vintage car dealer based in Massachusetts. The plaintiff claimed that a third party buyer had backed out of a $100,000+ transaction due to shoddy work by our Client. We argued that our Client was not subject to long-arm jurisdiction in Massachusetts because he had never visited Massachusetts, had never advertised in Massachusetts, and had never sought out business contacts within Massachusetts. Rather, it was the plaintiff who had sought out our Client in California, contracted with him in California, and paid for and arranged for all transport of cars out of California. Following the filing of our Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss its Massachusetts claims against our Client.
Our Client, a large Newton supermarket, contracted with a bakery in Brooklyn, NY for the delivery of thousands of dollars worth of pastries and cakes. Our Client was dissatisfied with the condition of the goods upon delivery and returned them to the New York supplier. Some time later, our Client learned that a large default judgment had been entered against it in New York, and that its accounts had been garnished for the full amount of the judgment. Our Client was told by another law firm that nothing could be done. The Client then engaged our Firm, and we discovered that service of process had not been made in accordance with New York law, and that clearly erroneous affidavits had been filed by the opposing party in order to secure the original default judgment. We engaged Sharon Hwang, a BC Law graduate and friend of the Firm, as local counsel in New York. She tirelessly and successfully litigated a motion to vacate the default judgment in the New York courts, and our Client was awarded a full reversal of the judgment as well as attorney's fees. The opposing party then moved to appeal the reversal of the judgment, and also to re-file their original lawsuit pursuant to proper service of process on our Client. On the eve of appellate argument, the opposing party agreed to a settlement favorable to our Client which included a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, precluding the re-filing of the lawsuit.
Our Client, a commercial landlord, discovered through an accounting review that a former tenant owed approximately $17,000 in utility charges. The tenant argued that the landlord had waived its right to the sum due to its acceptance of erroneously low utility payments during the tenancy. We argued that the tenant had acted in bad faith by taking advantage of an error on our Client's part, and furthermore that the tenant had always been aware of its actual obligations under the lease. Following the discovery phase of the trial, the parties settled for an amount that was close to the original amount sought by our Client.
Our Client was a property management company that services properties in default or foreclosure on behalf of banks, and was subcontracted by the default management arm of a national title insurance company. For over one year before our Client contacted us, the title insurance company refused to pay for services rendered on a particular property. Following our engagement, we were able to secure payment for our Client of the entire sum at issue (over $11,000).
| 
