Preview
aloe
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
WORCESTER, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2285CV00975 &
PATRICIA G. DEBELLO,
Plaintiff/Defendant in Counterclaim
Vv. AN SWER, AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES, VERIFIED
KRISTIN D’AMICO & RANDAL COUNTERCLAIM AND JURY
LAMBRACHT, DEMAND OF KRISTIN D’AMICO
AND RANDAL LAMBRACHT
Defendants/Plaintiffs in Counterclaim
And FILE
CLINTON SAVINGS BANK,
SEP 26 2022
Rule 19 Defendant
ATTEST Ml cusnK
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
(Filed August 25, 2022)
NOW COME the Defendants, Kristin D’Amico & Randal Lambracht (“D’ Amico”, “Lambracht”
and collectively, “Defendants”) and hereby answer the instant Verified Complaint, filed August
25, 2022, in stating the following.
PARTIES
sani
Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations as set forth in paragraph 1.
Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 2 in so much as the
residential address of Kristin D’Amico. Defendants deny the allegations that she is a real
estate broker and hereby state that she is a real estate agent.
Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 3.
glee
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
WORCESTER, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2285CV00975 &
PATRICIA G. DEBELLO,
Plaintiff/Defendant in Counterclaim
Vv. ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES, VERIFIED
KRISTIN D’AMICO & RANDAL COUNTERCLAIM AND JURY
LAMBRACHT, DEMAND OF KRISTIN D’AMICO
AND RANDAL LAMBRACHT
Defendants/Plaintiffs in Counterclaim
And FILE
CLINTON SAVINGS BANK,
SEP 26 2022
Rule 19 Defendant
ATTEST Al ln cure
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
(Filed August 25, 2022)
NOW COME the Defendants, Kristin D’ Amico & Randal Lambracht (“D’ Amico”, “Lambracht”
and collectively, “Defendants”) and hereby answer the instant Verified Complaint, filed August
25, 2022, in stating the following.
PARTIES
Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations as set forth in paragraph 1.
Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 2 in so much as the
residential address of Kristin D’Amico. Defendants deny the allegations that she is a real
estate broker and hereby state that she is a real estate agent.
Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 3.
Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the allegations as
set forth in paragraph 4.
Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations as set forth in paragraph 5.
Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations as set forth in paragraph 6.
Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations as set forth in paragraph 7.
Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 8 in so much as Patricia
and D’Amico had a close relationship but are without sufficient information to admit or
deny the allegations set forth with regard to Patricia’s feelings.
Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 9.
10. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 10.
Il Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 11
12. Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 12 refer to documents
which speak for themselves.
13 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 13.
14. Defendants admit that they purchased the home for $587,457.00 but deny all other
allegations as set forth within paragraph 14.
15 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 15.
16 Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 16 refer to a document
which speaks for itself.
17. Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 17 refer to a document
which speaks for itself.
18 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 18.
19. Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 19 refer to a document
which speaks for itself.
Page 2 of 21
20. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 20.
21. Defendants state the allegations as set forth in paragraph 21 refer to a document which
speaks for itself.
22. Defendants state the allegations as set forth within paragraph 22 refer to a document
which speaks for itself.
23 Defendants state the allegations as set forth within paragraph 23 refer to a document
which speaks for itself.
24 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 24.
25, Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 25.
26 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 26.
27 Defendants state some of the allegations as set forth within paragraph 27 refer to
documents which speaks for itself, but deny the remaining allegations as set forth.
28 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 28
29. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 29.
30. . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 30
31 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 31
32 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 32
33 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 33
34. . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 34
COUNT I
(Cancellation)
35 . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-34 of this Answer.
36 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 36 and
state the allegations contained therein refer to a document which speaks for itself.
Page 3 of 21
COUNTIT
(Rescission)
37. . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-36 of this Answer.
38 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 38 and
state the allegations contained therein refer to a document which speaks for itself.
COUNT IIT
(Constructive Trust)
39, . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-38 of this Answer.
40. . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 40.
COUNT IV
(Reformation)
41 . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-40 of this Answer.
42 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 42 and
state the allegations contained therein refer to a document which speaks for itself.
43 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 43.
44, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 44.
COUNT V
(Undue Influence)
45 . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-44 of this Answer.
46. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 46 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
COUNT VI
(Duress)
47. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-46 of this Answer.
48 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 48 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
Page 4 of 21
COUNT VII
(Deceit)
49. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-48 of this Answer.
50. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 50 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
COUNT Vit
(Breach of Contract)
51. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-50 of this Answer.
52. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 52 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
COUNT IX
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
53. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-52 of this Answer.
54. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 54 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
COUNT X
(Unjust Enrichment)
55. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-54 of this Answer.
56. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 56 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
COUNT XI
(Conversion)
57. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-56 of this Answer.
58. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 58 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
Page 5 of 21
COUNT XII
(intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
59. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-58 of this Answer.
60. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 60.
61. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 61.
62. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 62 and deny that Plaintiff is
entitled to the relief requested.
COUNT XD
(Declaratory Judgment)
63 Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-62 of this Answer.
64 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 64.
65 Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 65.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth by the Plaintiff except as to those
specifically admitted above.
Plaintiffs Verified Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
must be dismissed.
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the Parole Evidence Rule.
Plaintiff is barred under the doctrine of waiver.
Defendants are not in breach.
Plaintiff is barred by her own breach.
Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Page 6 of 21
10. Plaintiff has failed to meet a condition precedent
11, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages.
12. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of Laches.
13. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
14. Defendants are in substantial compliance.
15. Plaintiff has prevented the defendants from performance.
16. Plaintiff's claims are barred by her own fraud, deceit and misrepresentations.
17. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of conversion.
18. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the detrimental reliance of the defendants.
19. Plaintiff has suffered no damages.
20. Plaintiff's claims are barred under quantum meruit.
21. Any damage suffered by Plaintiff was caused by someone for whose conduct the
defendants were not and are not legally responsible for.
22. Plaintiff’s claims are wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith and
Defendants are entitled to reasonable counsel fees and other costs and expenses incurred
in defending such claims pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, §6F.
23. Defendants reserve the right to supplement their affirmative defenses as deemed
necessary and may become apparent through the discovery process.
VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM
INTRODUCTION
The Defendants, Kristin D’Amico and Randal Lambracht, (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Counterclaim Plaintiffs” or individually as “D’Amico” and “Lambracht” respectively) are
Husband and Wife and the parents of one minor child. D’Amico and Lambracht purchased the
property located at 8 Carr Road, Berlin, Worcester County, Massachusetts (“the property”) by
way of deed executed April 6, 2022 and recorded with the Worcester County Registry of Deeds
Page 7 of 21
on April 15, 2022. They continue to reside at the property, together with Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant, Patricia DeBello (“DeBello”). DeBello has filed a Complaint to rescind the sale of
the property and Plaintiffs in Counterclaim hereby seek damages as a result of DeBello’s actions
outlined below.
PARTIES
Plaintiff in Counterclaim Kristin D’Amico is a married mother of one child with a
residential address of 8 Carr Road, Berlin, County of Worcester, Massachusetts.
Plaintiff in Counterclaim Randal Lambracht is a married father of one child with a
residential address of 8 Carr Road, Berlin, County of Worcester, Massachusetts.
Defendant in Counterclaim Patricia DeBello (“DeBello”) is a widow with a residential
address of 8 Carr Road, Berlin, County of Worcester, Massachusetts.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Worcester Superior Court pursuant to G.L.c. 212
& 223 as all parties reside within Worcester County and the Superior Court has original
jurisdiction over the initial Complaint and therefore this Counterclaim.
FACTS
DeBello was the owner of the property along with her late husband Sidney since
approximately 1990.
Sidney passed away on or about July 4, 2021, and DeBello became the sole owner of the
property at that time.
DeBello has an interest in Wellesley Trucking Services, Inc., which is a corporation
specializing in the business of hauling commercial, municipal and industrial waste and
recycling materials based in Framingham, Massachusetts.
DeBello also has an interest in Three D Realty Trust and D Realty Trust which are real
estate holding trusts that own multiple properties.
D’Amico and DeBello had a very close relationship for approximately twenty years and
since D’ Amico was nine years old.
10. D’Amico and DeBello maintained this close relationship until approximately May 2022.
Page 8 of 21
ll In August of 2021, DeBello executed certain estate planning documents assigning, inter
alia, D’Amico as her Health Care Proxy, Durable Power of Attorney, Personal
Representative and thirty (30%) beneficiary to the residue of her estate.
12. Upon information and belief, these documents were prepared at the direction of DeBello
at least seven (7) months prior to August 2021, in approximately January 2021.
13 Also in August 2021, DeBello approached D’ Amico and expressed her interest in listing
the property for sale.
14, DeBello knew that D’ Amico was a real estate agent and asked her opinion as to many
items at the property including improvements that should be done so that it could be
listed in Spring 2022.
15. DeBello told D’Amico that she wanted to purchase a condominium and board her horses
as she could not take care of the property anymore due to the size and her age.
16. D’Amico and Lambracht had consistently assisted with the maintenance at the property
over time and especially since the death of Sidney.
17 Between August and November of 2021, DeBello engaged D’Amico in conversations
relative to DeBello’s estate, financial concerns of DeBello, and regarding ways to protect
DeBello’s financial interests.
18 DeBello informed D’ Amico of her desire to meet with financial advisors and estate
planning attorneys in that regard.
19. On or about November 18, 2021, DeBello approached Lambracht with a proposal for
D’Amico and Lambracht to move in with her and split the expenses.
20. At that time, D’Amico and Lambracht were living in an updated home located at 180
Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts which consisted of 3,451 square feet of
gross living area, a three-car garage, two fireplaces, four bedrooms, four bathrooms,
(including a master bedroom with attached master bath), one open back deck, two barns
with stalls for horses and a chicken coup and fenced-in land.
21 D’Amico and Lambracht were living safely and securely in their West Boylston home
and had no plans to sell or relocate when approached by DeBello with her request for
them to live together.
22. DeBello continued to ask D’Amico and Lambracht to move in with her and split all of the
expenses of the home.
Page 9 of 21
23. D’Amico told DeBello that she was not comfortable with that arrangement and suggested
they review it with an attorney.
24. DeBello asked D’Amico to set up a meeting with attorneys at Mirick O’Connell as she
believed her previous attorneys made a mistake allowing her husband Sidney to die
intestate.
25. On or about December 7, 2021, Debello, D’ Amico and Lambracht met with Attorney
Arthur Bergeron of Mirick O’Connell.
26 Many items were discussed with Attorney Bergeron including, but not limited to, how
DeBello could reduce her overall taxable estate and how to handle the property which
was confirmed by way of letter from Attorney Bergeron dated December 14, 2021. See
Exhibit 1.
27. In his letter, Attorney Bergeron estimated that DeBello’s estate, based on her disclosures,
had a net worth of about four million ($4,000,000.00) including the property which
DeBello valued at two million ($2,000,000.00) but was encumbered by a remaining
mortgage of $600,000.00.
28 Attorney Bergeron further made certain recommendations regarding her estate in that
letter.
29. On or about December 18, 2021, DeBello confirmed the spelling of D’Amico’s name via
text message so that DeBello could add D’Amico to her checking account when she
removed Sidney’s name.
30. Mirick O’Connell followed up on the letter and recommendations of Attorney Bergeron
by way of email dated January 13, 2022.
31. On or about February 15, 2022, DeBello advised D’Amico that she spoke with Wellesley
Trucking and also her accountant who advised DeBello to gift the equity in the property.
32. Also on February 15, 2022, DeBello advised D’ Amico that she was setting up another
appointment with Mirick O’Connell to handle her late husband’s estate and for the gifting
of the equity in the property to D’Amico.
33. On or about February 16, 2022, DeBello was made aware of the extensive renovations
that D’Amico and Lambracht would be performing at the property due to its disrepair
compared to the pristine condition of their current home.
Page 10 of 21
34. On or about February 23, 2022, DeBello, as seller, entered into an Offer to Purchase Real
Estate (“OTP”) with D’Amico and Lambracht, as buyers, for the sale of the property. See
Exhibit 2.
35 The OTP was then sent to Attorney Ashley Coffey of Mirick O’Connell who came at the
recommendation of Attorney Bergeron.
36 The OTP outlined, inter alia, a sale price of $589,153.26, a closing date of April 8, 2022
and that “Buyers agree to lifetime occupancy and use of estate by seller.
37. Also on February 23, 2022, a group email was sent by D’Amico to connect Attorney
Coffey, as attorney for DeBello, with Attorney Jason St. Pierre, as attorney for D’Amico
and Lambracht in this transaction.
38. Attorney Coffey later confirmed via email the terms of DeBello’s “lease for life’
opposed to her remaining on title as a life estate holder.
39. D’Amico responded they would all be living together and that DeBello would only be
responsible for splitting the utilities (internet services, electric and heating oil) as they all
agreed.
40. On or about February 25, 2022, a formal Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P&S”) was
drafted by DeBello’s attorney, Ashley Coffey, and was sent to Attorney St. Pierre’s office
for review.
Al The P&S was further negotiated between Attorney Coffey and Attorney St. Pierre’s
office and was fully executed by D’Amico and Lambracht on or about February 25, 2022.
and then later by DeBello on February 28, 2022, after she had an opportunity to review it.
See Exhibit 3
42. The P&S fully described the property to be transferred, the purchase price of
$589,153.26, a closing date of April 8, 2022, and, inter alia, a “lease for life” at section
34 which specifically states as follows:
Prior to the Closing, the parties shall negotiate and enter into a lease agreement for the
Seller to occupy the Premises for the remainder of Seller’s life. Buyer and Seller shall
split the cost of the utilities servicing the Premises utilities (internet services, electric and
heating oil), and Buyer shall be responsible for real estate taxes, mortgage payments,
and insurance.
43, The P&S also specified that the OTP was terminated and of no further force or effect due
to the signing of the P&S
Page 11 of 21
44, All parties continued acting pursuant to the P&S and D’Amico and Lambracht sought
lending through Clinton Savings Bank who would later hold a mortgage on the property.
45, On or about March 15, 2022, DeBello gave permission to Charter Spectrum to transfer
that account from her name into D’Amico’s name.
46 On or about March 16, 2022, an appraisal was performed by KJ Ball & Company on
behalf of Clinton Savings Bank and the property was valued at $1,100,000.00 at that
time.
47 On or about March 24, 2022, Attorney Coffey circulated an Amendment to Purchase and
Sale Agreement (“Amendment 1”) which was signed by all parties and adjusted the
purchase price of the property to $587,457.00 as well as the mortgage amount to
$469,966.00. See Exhibit 4.
48 On or about April 4, 2022, DeBello gave permission to transfer the National Grid account
from her name into D’Amico’s name.
49, On or about April 6, 2022, Attorney Coffey circulated a Second Amendment to Purchase
and Sale Agreement (“Amendment 2”) which was signed by all parties and which
extended the closing date to April 15, 2022 and also deleted Section 34 in its entirety
which was the “Lease for Life” clause. See Exhibit 5.
50. Amendment 2 further stated that any conflict between the Amendment and the P&S, that
the Amendment shall prevail.
51 Also, on or about April 6, 2022, a Side Agreement to Purchase and Sale (“Side
Agreement”) was exchanged between Attorney Coffey and Attorney St. Pierre’s office
which seemingly sought to contract the “Lease for Life” separate from the P&S. See
Exhibit 6.
52. The Side Agreement contained the same language as the deleted section 34 of the P&S,
and it was never executed by the parties.
53 Also on April 6, 2022, DeBello signed the deed to transfer the property to D’Amico and
Lambracht which contained a notary clause affirming that she signed it voluntarily for its
stated purpose along with an Affidavit pursuant to IRC Section 2031. See Exhibit 7
54, In reliance upon this agreement, D’ Amico and Lambracht listed their home, located at
180 Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts, for sale on or about April 7, 2022 and
accepted an offer on this home on or about April 12, 2022.
Page 12 of 21
55 On April 15, 2022, the closing occurred on the property and the deed was transferred
from DeBello to D’Amico and Lambracht and was recorded with the Worcester County
Registry of Deeds at Book 67446, Page 196.
56 At no time prior to closing on April 15, 2022, did Attorney Coffey ever exchange a
written proposed lease agreement with Attorney St. Pierre’s office, D’ Amico or
Lambracht.
57 The first time Attorney Coffey sent any proposed agreement for DeBello was on April
25, 2022, some ten (10) days after the closing when she sent a document entitled “Life
Estate Agreement” (“Lease 1”) by email to D’Amico and DeBello. See Exhibit 8.
58. D’Amico followed up with Attorney Coffey on May 6, 2022 and let her know that they
were reviewing with Attorney St. Pierre’s office.
59 Attorney Coffey then followed up with D’Amico by email on May 13, 2022, indicating
she would be happy to connect with Attorney St. Pierre regarding any questions.
60. By this point, the relationship between the parties began to deteriorate due to DeBello’s
harassing, drunken and destructive behavior that she was exhibiting at the property and
towards D’Amico, Lambracht and their child.
61 DeBello would consistently allow her dog to defecate in the home and would refuse to
clean it up.
62. DeBello’s dog attacked visitors, other dogs and horses that belonged to D’ Amico and
Lambracht causing property damage and injury.
63 DeBello began to have erratic outbursts, berate and harass D’Amico and Lambracht over
minimal things such as ordering food for their own animals and reprimanding her dog
when it was causing damage.
64 DeBello began to yell and scream at D’Amico and Lambracht and would call them names
and disparage them in front of, and to, visitors, guests and neighbors.
65. On or about May 12, 2022 D’Amico, Lambracht and DeBello sat down to address
DeBello’s erratic and abusive behavior and to try and work out a living arrangement that
would be suitable and safe for them all.
66 D’Amico and Lambracht even offered to build a brand new separate in law suite for
DeBello so that they could each have their own living arrangements while the property
was already undergoing extensive renovations.
Page 13 of 21
67. DeBello refused any arrangement and indicated that she hoped the living arrangement
didn’t work out so she could get the difference between appraised value and purchase
price on the property.
68 DeBello continued her erratic and destructive behavior and continuously would smoke
cigarettes in the home after being asked not to, due to the fact that Counterclaim
Plaintiffs’ one-year-old child was living in the home.
69. On or about May 17, 2022, Attorney St. Pierre contacted Attorney Coffey and informed
her of the ongoing issues with the living situation at the property and extended the offer
to build a separate living quarter for DeBello.
70. Attorney Coffey responded that she had a long talk with DeBello and would be following
up with the revisions that she [DeBello] wants.
71 On or about May 26, 2022, Attorney Coffey, after consultation with DeBello, sent a
revised agreement to Attorney St. Pierre entitled “Life Tenancy Agreement” (“Lease 2”).
See Exhibit 9.
72. The revised Lease 2 contained drastic and extortionist changes which were never
contemplated by the parties including, inter alia, a section 8 regarding intolerable living
conditions.
B Under the aforementioned section 8, DeBello was demanding payment of $1,212,543.00,
which she purported as the difference in value of the property and the purchase price,
should either party determine the living conditions to be intolerable.
14, As outlined above, the bank appraisal placed a value on the property of $1,100,000.00
and the sale price was $587,457.00 therefore the difference would be $512,543.00 and
not the $1,212,543.00 sought above.
75 DeBello’s revised Lease 2 sought to extort $700,000.00 out of D’Amico and Lambracht
should she solely decide that the living conditions were intolerable and was sent with the
knowledge that the sale of their home at 2180 Malden Street, West Boylston,
Massachusetts was imminent.
76. Attorney Coffey’s email further indicated that DeBello wanted to keep living her life at
the property the same way that she did prior to the closing and that she, DeBello, felt
disrespected,
77. On May 31, 2022 D’ Amico and Lambracht closed on the sale of their home located at
180 Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts for the purchase price of $880,000.00
by deed recorded in the Worcester County Registry of Deeds Book: 67674, Page: 42.
Page 14 of 21
78. On or about June 1, 2022, a further revised agreement (“Lease 3”) was sent back to
Attorney Coffey from Attorney St. Pierre with revisions by D’Amico and Lambracht in
an attempt to negotiate the situation. See Exhibit 10.
79. None of the Leases 1, 2 or 3 were ever executed by the parties.
80. During this time DeBello continued her abusive and destructive behavior and began
blocking the garage door with her truck because she now demanded a garage parking
spot.
81 DeBello constantly berated and threatened D’Amico and Lambracht including threating
to break down doors and cause other damage.
82. D’Amico and Lambracht installed security cameras for their safety and installed a lock
on their bedroom door to prevent access by DeBello.
83. DeBello also began to steal mail that belonged to D’Amico and Lambracht and she
further stole keys Lambracht’s tractor which were later discovered plainly visible in
DeBello’s car.
84. DeBello’s animals caused damage and injury to horses that belonged to D’Amico and
Lambracht, so a lock was placed to keep D’Amico and Lambracht’s horses in one
separate paddock while DeBello had access to four other paddocks for her horses.
85. DeBello continuously taunted the security cameras and continuously made disparaging
remarks about D’Amico and Lambracht to various individuals and the cameras.
86. On or about June 6, 2022, Attorney Coffey signed, under the pains and penalties of
perjury, and recorded an Affidavit pursuant to M.G.L. c. 183, §5b with the Worcester
County Registry of Deeds at Book: 67706 and Page: 196. See Exhibit 11.
87. Since that time, the behaviors of DeBello have continued and the Berlin Police were
called and reported to the property multiple times due to DeBello’s actions.
88. On or about June 29, 2022, a Notice to Quit was served on DeBello due to the actions she
was exhibiting at the property.
89. To date, no summary process eviction has been initiated.
90. On or about June 30, 2022, DeBello drove up behind D’Amico and her one-year-old
child while they were walking down the driveway to feed the horses and honked her horn
and basically ran them off the road causing them immediate fear of physical harm.
Page 15 of21
91. On or about July 7, 2022, DeBello and her boyfriend Robert Petrillo were making violent
physical threats against D’Amico and Lambracht and as a result he was no trespassed
from the property.
92 On or about July 26, 2022, D’Amico suffered a miscarriage and was forced to undergo
surgery which she attributes to the ongoing distress created by DeBello.
93 DeBello continued her behavior and has stolen security cameras from the home that
belonged to D’ Amico and Lambracht.
94 Although being presented with two negotiated offers of settlement, DeBello filed the
underlying complaint in Worcester Superior Court on or about August 25, 2022, and
service was accepted by DeBello herself on August 29, 2022.
95. A Motion for Lis Pendens was heard and allowed by this Honorable Court on September
1, 2022.
96. DeBello thereafter filed a Verified Complaint, Temporary Restraining Order, and Motion
for Preliminary Injunction in Worcester Housing Court on or about September 7, 2022.
COUNT I
(Assault)
97. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-96 of this
Counterclaim.
98. DeBello placed D’ Amico in fear of imminent battery by driving her truck at her and her
child on or about June 30, 2022, as more fully described above.
COUNT I
(intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
99. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-98 of this
Counterclaim.
100. DeBello knew or should have known that emotional distress was likely to be caused by
her conduct.
101. DeBello’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
102. DeBello’s conduct was beyond all bounds of decency.
Page 16 of 21
103. DeBello’s conduct caused the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim to suffer severe emotional
distress.
COUNT II
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
104. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-103 of this
Counterclaim.
105. DeBello’s conduct described above was negligent.
106. DeBello’s negligent conduct caused the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim to suffer severe
emotional distress.
107. The emotional distress suffered was evidenced by physical harm as outlined above.
108. A reasonable person would have suffered emotional distress under the circumstances.
COUNT IV
(Abuse of Process)
109. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-108 of this
Counterclaim.
110. DeBello has engaged in legal process for an ulterior or illegitimate purpose which has
caused damage to the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim.
111.By DeBello’s actions, she simply has seller’s remorse and is trying to rescind the sale of
a home which was validly sold.
112. Further, she is attempting to stay in the home for free, all while she has caused physical
damage to the property, physical and emotional damage to the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim
and has forced them to incur substantial expenses in defense of these matters.
113. The emotional distress suffered was evidenced by physical harm as outlined above.
COUNT V
(M.G.L. c. 140, §155 — Dog Bite Statute)
114. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-113 of this
Counterclaim.
Page 17 of 21
115. DeBello is the owner and keeper of her dog Ebony and is therefore strictly liable for
damage caused pursuant to statute.
116.On multiple occasions Ebony has caused physical damage to property owned by
Plaintiffs in Counterclaim including, but not limited to, their horses.
117.Plaintiffs in Counterclaim were neither trespassing, teasing or tormenting Ebony at any
time.
COUNT VI
(Conversion)
118. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-117 of this
Counterclaim.
119, DeBello has engaged in intentional and wrongful exercise of dominion and control over
personal property owned by the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim by placing various locks of her
own throughout the property preventing them access to their own belongings as well as
stealing items including, but not limited to, security cameras.
120. Ownership of the property has been vested in the Counterclaim Plaintiffs for all relevant
times herein.
121. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim suffered damages as a result and have requested DeBello to
remove the locks which she has refused.
COUNT VII
(Unjust Enrichment)
122. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-121 of this
Counterclaim.
123. DeBello has continuously resided at the property since closing without paying any
expenses of the property whatsoever.
124. DeBello has been provided the utility invoices, through counsel, but has yet to pay
anything.
125. DeBello continues to be unjustly enriched at the expense of D’Amico and Lambracht by
remaining on the property for free which was never a consideration of any party.
COUNT VII
(Breach of Contract)
Page 18 of 21
126. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-125 of this
Counterclaim.
127. Should the Court determine that a legal contract exists, DeBello is in breach of said
contract as she has failed to pay her portion of the expenses after being presented with
invoices through counsel.
128.D’ Amico and Lambracht have and continue to suffer damages asa result of her breach.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs in Counterclaim demand judgment enter against DeBello on each of the
Counts listed above in an amount duly compensating them for their damages, together with all
costs, attorney’s fees, multiple, consequential and punitive damages as allowed along with any
other relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs in Counterclaim hereby demand a trial by jury for all claims so available.
Respectfully submitted,
KRISTIN D’AMICO & RANDAL LAMBRACHT
By ir attorn
Dated: September 26, 2022
Anthony J. , Esq) BBO# 674874
ANTHONY S/LUZZO, P.C.
370 Main Street, Suite 900
Worcester, MA 01608
P: (508) 798-8000
F: (508) 798-8006
E: Anthony@luzzolaw.com
Page 19 of 21
VERIFICATION
I, Kristin D’Amico, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, state under the pains and penalties of
perjury that I have reviewed the factual allegations contained within this Verified Counterclaim
and attest that they are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and as to allegations made
on information and belief, I have sufficient grounds to believe them to be true. I further certify
that no material facts have been omitted, to the best of my knowledge.
iit ico (Sep 26, 2022 1329 EDT)
Kristin D’Amico
I, Randal Lambracht, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, state under the pains and penalties of
perjury that I have reviewed the factual allegations contained within this Verified Counterclaim
and attest that they are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and as to allegations made
on information and belief, I have sufficient grounds to believe them to be true. I further certify
that no material facts have been omitted, to the best of my knowledge.
Randal Lambracht
Page 20 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the within Defendants’ Answer, Affirmative
Defenses, Verified Counterclaim & Jury Demand was this day served on Counsel of Record for
Plaintiff, by way of hand-delivery to the office of Counsel, and by way of electronic mail, to the
following:
WilliamD. Jalkut, Esq.
Fletcher Tilton, P.C
370 Main Street, 8th Floor
Worcester, MA 01608
wjalkut@fletchertilton.com
Signed this day under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Dated: J Jem ber Ab 2022
Ober
Anthony 1 Dezag
Page 21 of 21
2022.9.26 Answer to Complaint, Affirmative
Defenses, Verified Counterclaim, & Jury
Demand_3
Final Audit Report 2022-09-26
Created: 2022-09-26
By: Kimberly LeDoux (kimberly@revellilaw.com)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA7NIX4RCc_vTjMW_qefSuwkrE-_FSAmyH
"2022.9.26 Answer to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, Verified
Counterclaim, & Jury Demand_3" History
©) Document created by Kimberly LeDoux (kimberly@revellilaw.com)
2022-09-26 - 5:02:48 PM GMT- IP address: 66.168.47.182
© Document emailed to kridamico@gmail.com for signature
2022-09-26 - 5:03:38 PM GMT
Email viewed by kridamico@gmail.com
2022-09-26 - 5:03:41 PM GMT- IP address: 66.249.91.152
& Signer kridamico@gmail.com entered name at signing as Kristin D'Amico
2022-09-26 - 5:29:01 PM GMT- IP address: 174.242.67.27
% Document e-signed by Kristin D'Amico (kridamico@gmail.com)
Signature Date: 2022-09-26 - 5:29:02 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.242.67.27
BR Document emailed to randylambracht@gmail.com for signature
2022-09-26 - 5:29:05 PM GMT
Email viewed by randylambracht@gmail.com
2022-09-26 - 5:29:07 PM GMT- IP address: 66.249.91.156
&& Signer randylambracht@gmail.com entered name at signing as Randal Lambracht
2022-09-26 - 5:51:20 PM GMT- IP address: 174.242.64.159
& Document e-signed by Randal Lambracht (randylambracht@gmail.com)
Signature Date: 2022-09-26 - 5:51:21 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.242.64.159
Adobe Acrobat Sign
@ Agreement completed.
2022-09-26 - 5:51:21 PM GMT
Adobe Acrobat Sign
|
Exhibit 1
MIRICK O’CONNELL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Arthur P, Bergeron
Mirick O’Connell
1800 West Park Drive, Suite 400
Westborough, MA 01581-3926
abergeron@mirickoconnell.com
1 508.860.1470
£ 508.463.1385
December 14, 2021
Patricia DeBello
8 Carr Road
Berlin, MA 01503
Dear Ms. DeBello:
It was a pleasure meeting with you, your practically adopted daughter, Kristin D’Amico,
her partner, Randy, and their new child, Hayden, as well as my colleague, Attorney Leah Kofos,
at our Westborough office on Tuesday, December 7", to discuss your personal and financial
situation and your estate planning and asset protection goals and concerns. While you had not
completed an Estate Planning Questionnaire, I think you told me that your assets consist
approximately of the following:
1 Your home (together with surrounding lands) in Berlin, which you told me has a
current value of about $2-million and is subject to a mortgage of $600,000;
Various cash or cash equivalent assets that have a total value of about $600,000;
and
Your 40% interest in a trucking business, the land on which the trucking business
is located, and certain adjacent land. You estimated that the total value of those
assets is probably $5 million. 40% of that would be $2 million.
Therefore, it would appear to me that you at this point, your total net worth is about $4-
million.
You brought with you a copy of your current Will, which you told me you probably want
to alter. The current Will, though, gives your brother-in-law, David DeBello, all of your interest
in the trucking company and the real estate. Regarding your remaining assets, you give 30% to
your “daughter,” Kristen D’Amico. You give all of your remaining assets to various non-profit
entities.
We spent a little bit of time talking about the estate tax implications of all of that. If you
were to die tomorrow leaving a taxable estate of $4-million, the Massachusetts estate tax would
be $286,640. However, any assets that are given to a charitable organization that has IRS
Mirick, O’CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP
Worcester | WestBorouGH | Boston
www.mirickoconnell.com
‘Non Client Matter APB/DEBELLO/A7509
166, DOCX
MIRICK O’CONNELL
Patricia DeBello
December 14, 2021
Page 2
501(c)(3) status, get subtracted from the taxable estate. According to my numbers, if you are
leaving 70% of $2-million, or $1.4-million, to non-profit entities, you will thereby reduce your
total taxable estate to $2.6-million and reduce the resulting estate tax to $152,080. To the extent
that you want to further reduce that estate tax, you could do so by simply instructing the person
you named in your power of attorney to give away your remaining cash or cash equivalent assets
before you die. If, for example, you gave away the $600,000 that you now have in cash or cash
equivalent assets, thereby reducing your remaining taxable estate to only $2-million, you’d be
reducing your estate tax to $103,920. Contrary to popular myth, there is no gift tax that would
affect you. Incidentally, because a lot of this will be going to your brother-in-law, you may want
to specify in your documents that he is agreeing as a condition of the receipt of these funds to
pay the estate for his share of the estate tax.
While you did not come to the office to talk about this, we ended up spending some time
discussing the “problem” that the corporation still has resulting from the fact that a sister of your
late husband, who owned and still owns 20% of the shares of the corporation, and who I assume
also has a 20% interest in the real estate, was required to leave the company after it was found
that she had stolen substantial assets. You told me that there is actually a judgment against her to
pay back quite a bit of this, but this is still going to leave you with the fact that she has beneficial
interests in the trust that owns the real estate as well as owning shares in the corporation. You
would probably help your brother-in-law a great deal if you could spend some time sorting that
out now in a way that does not hurt you as a tax matter and ultimately helps your brother-in-law.
One suggestion that I made, and which may be worth exploring, would be “watering down” the
shares in the corporation so that your sister-i
Preview
aloe COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT WORCESTER, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2285CV00975 & PATRICIA G. DEBELLO, Plaintiff/Defendant in Counterclaim Vv. AN SWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, VERIFIED KRISTIN D’AMICO & RANDAL COUNTERCLAIM AND JURY LAMBRACHT, DEMAND OF KRISTIN D’AMICO AND RANDAL LAMBRACHT Defendants/Plaintiffs in Counterclaim And FILE CLINTON SAVINGS BANK, SEP 26 2022 Rule 19 Defendant ATTEST Ml cusnK ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (Filed August 25, 2022) NOW COME the Defendants, Kristin D’Amico & Randal Lambracht (“D’ Amico”, “Lambracht” and collectively, “Defendants”) and hereby answer the instant Verified Complaint, filed August 25, 2022, in stating the following. PARTIES sani Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in paragraph 1. Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 2 in so much as the residential address of Kristin D’Amico. Defendants deny the allegations that she is a real estate broker and hereby state that she is a real estate agent. Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 3. glee COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT WORCESTER, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2285CV00975 & PATRICIA G. DEBELLO, Plaintiff/Defendant in Counterclaim Vv. ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, VERIFIED KRISTIN D’AMICO & RANDAL COUNTERCLAIM AND JURY LAMBRACHT, DEMAND OF KRISTIN D’AMICO AND RANDAL LAMBRACHT Defendants/Plaintiffs in Counterclaim And FILE CLINTON SAVINGS BANK, SEP 26 2022 Rule 19 Defendant ATTEST Al ln cure ANSWER TO COMPLAINT (Filed August 25, 2022) NOW COME the Defendants, Kristin D’ Amico & Randal Lambracht (“D’ Amico”, “Lambracht” and collectively, “Defendants”) and hereby answer the instant Verified Complaint, filed August 25, 2022, in stating the following. PARTIES Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in paragraph 1. Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 2 in so much as the residential address of Kristin D’Amico. Defendants deny the allegations that she is a real estate broker and hereby state that she is a real estate agent. Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 3. Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in paragraph 4. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in paragraph 5. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in paragraph 6. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in paragraph 7. Defendants admit the allegations as set forth within paragraph 8 in so much as Patricia and D’Amico had a close relationship but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth with regard to Patricia’s feelings. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 9. 10. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 10. Il Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 11 12. Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 12 refer to documents which speak for themselves. 13 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 13. 14. Defendants admit that they purchased the home for $587,457.00 but deny all other allegations as set forth within paragraph 14. 15 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 15. 16 Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 16 refer to a document which speaks for itself. 17. Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 17 refer to a document which speaks for itself. 18 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 18. 19. Defendants state that the allegations as set forth within paragraph 19 refer to a document which speaks for itself. Page 2 of 21 20. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 20. 21. Defendants state the allegations as set forth in paragraph 21 refer to a document which speaks for itself. 22. Defendants state the allegations as set forth within paragraph 22 refer to a document which speaks for itself. 23 Defendants state the allegations as set forth within paragraph 23 refer to a document which speaks for itself. 24 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 24. 25, Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 25. 26 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 26. 27 Defendants state some of the allegations as set forth within paragraph 27 refer to documents which speaks for itself, but deny the remaining allegations as set forth. 28 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 28 29. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 29. 30. . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 30 31 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 31 32 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 32 33 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 33 34. . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 34 COUNT I (Cancellation) 35 . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-34 of this Answer. 36 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 36 and state the allegations contained therein refer to a document which speaks for itself. Page 3 of 21 COUNTIT (Rescission) 37. . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-36 of this Answer. 38 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 38 and state the allegations contained therein refer to a document which speaks for itself. COUNT IIT (Constructive Trust) 39, . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-38 of this Answer. 40. . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 40. COUNT IV (Reformation) 41 . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-40 of this Answer. 42 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 42 and state the allegations contained therein refer to a document which speaks for itself. 43 . Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 43. 44, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 44. COUNT V (Undue Influence) 45 . Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-44 of this Answer. 46. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 46 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. COUNT VI (Duress) 47. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-46 of this Answer. 48 . Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 48 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. Page 4 of 21 COUNT VII (Deceit) 49. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-48 of this Answer. 50. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 50 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. COUNT Vit (Breach of Contract) 51. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-50 of this Answer. 52. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 52 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. COUNT IX (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 53. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-52 of this Answer. 54. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 54 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. COUNT X (Unjust Enrichment) 55. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-54 of this Answer. 56. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 56 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. COUNT XI (Conversion) 57. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-56 of this Answer. 58. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 58 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. Page 5 of 21 COUNT XII (intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 59. Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-58 of this Answer. 60. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 60. 61. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 61. 62. Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 62 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. COUNT XD (Declaratory Judgment) 63 Defendants incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-62 of this Answer. 64 Defendants deny the allegations as set forth within paragraph 64. 65 Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested within paragraph 65. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth by the Plaintiff except as to those specifically admitted above. Plaintiffs Verified Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the Parole Evidence Rule. Plaintiff is barred under the doctrine of waiver. Defendants are not in breach. Plaintiff is barred by her own breach. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Page 6 of 21 10. Plaintiff has failed to meet a condition precedent 11, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages. 12. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of Laches. 13. Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 14. Defendants are in substantial compliance. 15. Plaintiff has prevented the defendants from performance. 16. Plaintiff's claims are barred by her own fraud, deceit and misrepresentations. 17. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of conversion. 18. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the detrimental reliance of the defendants. 19. Plaintiff has suffered no damages. 20. Plaintiff's claims are barred under quantum meruit. 21. Any damage suffered by Plaintiff was caused by someone for whose conduct the defendants were not and are not legally responsible for. 22. Plaintiff’s claims are wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith and Defendants are entitled to reasonable counsel fees and other costs and expenses incurred in defending such claims pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, §6F. 23. Defendants reserve the right to supplement their affirmative defenses as deemed necessary and may become apparent through the discovery process. VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM INTRODUCTION The Defendants, Kristin D’Amico and Randal Lambracht, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Counterclaim Plaintiffs” or individually as “D’Amico” and “Lambracht” respectively) are Husband and Wife and the parents of one minor child. D’Amico and Lambracht purchased the property located at 8 Carr Road, Berlin, Worcester County, Massachusetts (“the property”) by way of deed executed April 6, 2022 and recorded with the Worcester County Registry of Deeds Page 7 of 21 on April 15, 2022. They continue to reside at the property, together with Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, Patricia DeBello (“DeBello”). DeBello has filed a Complaint to rescind the sale of the property and Plaintiffs in Counterclaim hereby seek damages as a result of DeBello’s actions outlined below. PARTIES Plaintiff in Counterclaim Kristin D’Amico is a married mother of one child with a residential address of 8 Carr Road, Berlin, County of Worcester, Massachusetts. Plaintiff in Counterclaim Randal Lambracht is a married father of one child with a residential address of 8 Carr Road, Berlin, County of Worcester, Massachusetts. Defendant in Counterclaim Patricia DeBello (“DeBello”) is a widow with a residential address of 8 Carr Road, Berlin, County of Worcester, Massachusetts. JURISDICTION & VENUE Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Worcester Superior Court pursuant to G.L.c. 212 & 223 as all parties reside within Worcester County and the Superior Court has original jurisdiction over the initial Complaint and therefore this Counterclaim. FACTS DeBello was the owner of the property along with her late husband Sidney since approximately 1990. Sidney passed away on or about July 4, 2021, and DeBello became the sole owner of the property at that time. DeBello has an interest in Wellesley Trucking Services, Inc., which is a corporation specializing in the business of hauling commercial, municipal and industrial waste and recycling materials based in Framingham, Massachusetts. DeBello also has an interest in Three D Realty Trust and D Realty Trust which are real estate holding trusts that own multiple properties. D’Amico and DeBello had a very close relationship for approximately twenty years and since D’ Amico was nine years old. 10. D’Amico and DeBello maintained this close relationship until approximately May 2022. Page 8 of 21 ll In August of 2021, DeBello executed certain estate planning documents assigning, inter alia, D’Amico as her Health Care Proxy, Durable Power of Attorney, Personal Representative and thirty (30%) beneficiary to the residue of her estate. 12. Upon information and belief, these documents were prepared at the direction of DeBello at least seven (7) months prior to August 2021, in approximately January 2021. 13 Also in August 2021, DeBello approached D’ Amico and expressed her interest in listing the property for sale. 14, DeBello knew that D’ Amico was a real estate agent and asked her opinion as to many items at the property including improvements that should be done so that it could be listed in Spring 2022. 15. DeBello told D’Amico that she wanted to purchase a condominium and board her horses as she could not take care of the property anymore due to the size and her age. 16. D’Amico and Lambracht had consistently assisted with the maintenance at the property over time and especially since the death of Sidney. 17 Between August and November of 2021, DeBello engaged D’Amico in conversations relative to DeBello’s estate, financial concerns of DeBello, and regarding ways to protect DeBello’s financial interests. 18 DeBello informed D’ Amico of her desire to meet with financial advisors and estate planning attorneys in that regard. 19. On or about November 18, 2021, DeBello approached Lambracht with a proposal for D’Amico and Lambracht to move in with her and split the expenses. 20. At that time, D’Amico and Lambracht were living in an updated home located at 180 Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts which consisted of 3,451 square feet of gross living area, a three-car garage, two fireplaces, four bedrooms, four bathrooms, (including a master bedroom with attached master bath), one open back deck, two barns with stalls for horses and a chicken coup and fenced-in land. 21 D’Amico and Lambracht were living safely and securely in their West Boylston home and had no plans to sell or relocate when approached by DeBello with her request for them to live together. 22. DeBello continued to ask D’Amico and Lambracht to move in with her and split all of the expenses of the home. Page 9 of 21 23. D’Amico told DeBello that she was not comfortable with that arrangement and suggested they review it with an attorney. 24. DeBello asked D’Amico to set up a meeting with attorneys at Mirick O’Connell as she believed her previous attorneys made a mistake allowing her husband Sidney to die intestate. 25. On or about December 7, 2021, Debello, D’ Amico and Lambracht met with Attorney Arthur Bergeron of Mirick O’Connell. 26 Many items were discussed with Attorney Bergeron including, but not limited to, how DeBello could reduce her overall taxable estate and how to handle the property which was confirmed by way of letter from Attorney Bergeron dated December 14, 2021. See Exhibit 1. 27. In his letter, Attorney Bergeron estimated that DeBello’s estate, based on her disclosures, had a net worth of about four million ($4,000,000.00) including the property which DeBello valued at two million ($2,000,000.00) but was encumbered by a remaining mortgage of $600,000.00. 28 Attorney Bergeron further made certain recommendations regarding her estate in that letter. 29. On or about December 18, 2021, DeBello confirmed the spelling of D’Amico’s name via text message so that DeBello could add D’Amico to her checking account when she removed Sidney’s name. 30. Mirick O’Connell followed up on the letter and recommendations of Attorney Bergeron by way of email dated January 13, 2022. 31. On or about February 15, 2022, DeBello advised D’Amico that she spoke with Wellesley Trucking and also her accountant who advised DeBello to gift the equity in the property. 32. Also on February 15, 2022, DeBello advised D’ Amico that she was setting up another appointment with Mirick O’Connell to handle her late husband’s estate and for the gifting of the equity in the property to D’Amico. 33. On or about February 16, 2022, DeBello was made aware of the extensive renovations that D’Amico and Lambracht would be performing at the property due to its disrepair compared to the pristine condition of their current home. Page 10 of 21 34. On or about February 23, 2022, DeBello, as seller, entered into an Offer to Purchase Real Estate (“OTP”) with D’Amico and Lambracht, as buyers, for the sale of the property. See Exhibit 2. 35 The OTP was then sent to Attorney Ashley Coffey of Mirick O’Connell who came at the recommendation of Attorney Bergeron. 36 The OTP outlined, inter alia, a sale price of $589,153.26, a closing date of April 8, 2022 and that “Buyers agree to lifetime occupancy and use of estate by seller. 37. Also on February 23, 2022, a group email was sent by D’Amico to connect Attorney Coffey, as attorney for DeBello, with Attorney Jason St. Pierre, as attorney for D’Amico and Lambracht in this transaction. 38. Attorney Coffey later confirmed via email the terms of DeBello’s “lease for life’ opposed to her remaining on title as a life estate holder. 39. D’Amico responded they would all be living together and that DeBello would only be responsible for splitting the utilities (internet services, electric and heating oil) as they all agreed. 40. On or about February 25, 2022, a formal Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P&S”) was drafted by DeBello’s attorney, Ashley Coffey, and was sent to Attorney St. Pierre’s office for review. Al The P&S was further negotiated between Attorney Coffey and Attorney St. Pierre’s office and was fully executed by D’Amico and Lambracht on or about February 25, 2022. and then later by DeBello on February 28, 2022, after she had an opportunity to review it. See Exhibit 3 42. The P&S fully described the property to be transferred, the purchase price of $589,153.26, a closing date of April 8, 2022, and, inter alia, a “lease for life” at section 34 which specifically states as follows: Prior to the Closing, the parties shall negotiate and enter into a lease agreement for the Seller to occupy the Premises for the remainder of Seller’s life. Buyer and Seller shall split the cost of the utilities servicing the Premises utilities (internet services, electric and heating oil), and Buyer shall be responsible for real estate taxes, mortgage payments, and insurance. 43, The P&S also specified that the OTP was terminated and of no further force or effect due to the signing of the P&S Page 11 of 21 44, All parties continued acting pursuant to the P&S and D’Amico and Lambracht sought lending through Clinton Savings Bank who would later hold a mortgage on the property. 45, On or about March 15, 2022, DeBello gave permission to Charter Spectrum to transfer that account from her name into D’Amico’s name. 46 On or about March 16, 2022, an appraisal was performed by KJ Ball & Company on behalf of Clinton Savings Bank and the property was valued at $1,100,000.00 at that time. 47 On or about March 24, 2022, Attorney Coffey circulated an Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Amendment 1”) which was signed by all parties and adjusted the purchase price of the property to $587,457.00 as well as the mortgage amount to $469,966.00. See Exhibit 4. 48 On or about April 4, 2022, DeBello gave permission to transfer the National Grid account from her name into D’Amico’s name. 49, On or about April 6, 2022, Attorney Coffey circulated a Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Amendment 2”) which was signed by all parties and which extended the closing date to April 15, 2022 and also deleted Section 34 in its entirety which was the “Lease for Life” clause. See Exhibit 5. 50. Amendment 2 further stated that any conflict between the Amendment and the P&S, that the Amendment shall prevail. 51 Also, on or about April 6, 2022, a Side Agreement to Purchase and Sale (“Side Agreement”) was exchanged between Attorney Coffey and Attorney St. Pierre’s office which seemingly sought to contract the “Lease for Life” separate from the P&S. See Exhibit 6. 52. The Side Agreement contained the same language as the deleted section 34 of the P&S, and it was never executed by the parties. 53 Also on April 6, 2022, DeBello signed the deed to transfer the property to D’Amico and Lambracht which contained a notary clause affirming that she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose along with an Affidavit pursuant to IRC Section 2031. See Exhibit 7 54, In reliance upon this agreement, D’ Amico and Lambracht listed their home, located at 180 Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts, for sale on or about April 7, 2022 and accepted an offer on this home on or about April 12, 2022. Page 12 of 21 55 On April 15, 2022, the closing occurred on the property and the deed was transferred from DeBello to D’Amico and Lambracht and was recorded with the Worcester County Registry of Deeds at Book 67446, Page 196. 56 At no time prior to closing on April 15, 2022, did Attorney Coffey ever exchange a written proposed lease agreement with Attorney St. Pierre’s office, D’ Amico or Lambracht. 57 The first time Attorney Coffey sent any proposed agreement for DeBello was on April 25, 2022, some ten (10) days after the closing when she sent a document entitled “Life Estate Agreement” (“Lease 1”) by email to D’Amico and DeBello. See Exhibit 8. 58. D’Amico followed up with Attorney Coffey on May 6, 2022 and let her know that they were reviewing with Attorney St. Pierre’s office. 59 Attorney Coffey then followed up with D’Amico by email on May 13, 2022, indicating she would be happy to connect with Attorney St. Pierre regarding any questions. 60. By this point, the relationship between the parties began to deteriorate due to DeBello’s harassing, drunken and destructive behavior that she was exhibiting at the property and towards D’Amico, Lambracht and their child. 61 DeBello would consistently allow her dog to defecate in the home and would refuse to clean it up. 62. DeBello’s dog attacked visitors, other dogs and horses that belonged to D’ Amico and Lambracht causing property damage and injury. 63 DeBello began to have erratic outbursts, berate and harass D’Amico and Lambracht over minimal things such as ordering food for their own animals and reprimanding her dog when it was causing damage. 64 DeBello began to yell and scream at D’Amico and Lambracht and would call them names and disparage them in front of, and to, visitors, guests and neighbors. 65. On or about May 12, 2022 D’Amico, Lambracht and DeBello sat down to address DeBello’s erratic and abusive behavior and to try and work out a living arrangement that would be suitable and safe for them all. 66 D’Amico and Lambracht even offered to build a brand new separate in law suite for DeBello so that they could each have their own living arrangements while the property was already undergoing extensive renovations. Page 13 of 21 67. DeBello refused any arrangement and indicated that she hoped the living arrangement didn’t work out so she could get the difference between appraised value and purchase price on the property. 68 DeBello continued her erratic and destructive behavior and continuously would smoke cigarettes in the home after being asked not to, due to the fact that Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ one-year-old child was living in the home. 69. On or about May 17, 2022, Attorney St. Pierre contacted Attorney Coffey and informed her of the ongoing issues with the living situation at the property and extended the offer to build a separate living quarter for DeBello. 70. Attorney Coffey responded that she had a long talk with DeBello and would be following up with the revisions that she [DeBello] wants. 71 On or about May 26, 2022, Attorney Coffey, after consultation with DeBello, sent a revised agreement to Attorney St. Pierre entitled “Life Tenancy Agreement” (“Lease 2”). See Exhibit 9. 72. The revised Lease 2 contained drastic and extortionist changes which were never contemplated by the parties including, inter alia, a section 8 regarding intolerable living conditions. B Under the aforementioned section 8, DeBello was demanding payment of $1,212,543.00, which she purported as the difference in value of the property and the purchase price, should either party determine the living conditions to be intolerable. 14, As outlined above, the bank appraisal placed a value on the property of $1,100,000.00 and the sale price was $587,457.00 therefore the difference would be $512,543.00 and not the $1,212,543.00 sought above. 75 DeBello’s revised Lease 2 sought to extort $700,000.00 out of D’Amico and Lambracht should she solely decide that the living conditions were intolerable and was sent with the knowledge that the sale of their home at 2180 Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts was imminent. 76. Attorney Coffey’s email further indicated that DeBello wanted to keep living her life at the property the same way that she did prior to the closing and that she, DeBello, felt disrespected, 77. On May 31, 2022 D’ Amico and Lambracht closed on the sale of their home located at 180 Malden Street, West Boylston, Massachusetts for the purchase price of $880,000.00 by deed recorded in the Worcester County Registry of Deeds Book: 67674, Page: 42. Page 14 of 21 78. On or about June 1, 2022, a further revised agreement (“Lease 3”) was sent back to Attorney Coffey from Attorney St. Pierre with revisions by D’Amico and Lambracht in an attempt to negotiate the situation. See Exhibit 10. 79. None of the Leases 1, 2 or 3 were ever executed by the parties. 80. During this time DeBello continued her abusive and destructive behavior and began blocking the garage door with her truck because she now demanded a garage parking spot. 81 DeBello constantly berated and threatened D’Amico and Lambracht including threating to break down doors and cause other damage. 82. D’Amico and Lambracht installed security cameras for their safety and installed a lock on their bedroom door to prevent access by DeBello. 83. DeBello also began to steal mail that belonged to D’Amico and Lambracht and she further stole keys Lambracht’s tractor which were later discovered plainly visible in DeBello’s car. 84. DeBello’s animals caused damage and injury to horses that belonged to D’Amico and Lambracht, so a lock was placed to keep D’Amico and Lambracht’s horses in one separate paddock while DeBello had access to four other paddocks for her horses. 85. DeBello continuously taunted the security cameras and continuously made disparaging remarks about D’Amico and Lambracht to various individuals and the cameras. 86. On or about June 6, 2022, Attorney Coffey signed, under the pains and penalties of perjury, and recorded an Affidavit pursuant to M.G.L. c. 183, §5b with the Worcester County Registry of Deeds at Book: 67706 and Page: 196. See Exhibit 11. 87. Since that time, the behaviors of DeBello have continued and the Berlin Police were called and reported to the property multiple times due to DeBello’s actions. 88. On or about June 29, 2022, a Notice to Quit was served on DeBello due to the actions she was exhibiting at the property. 89. To date, no summary process eviction has been initiated. 90. On or about June 30, 2022, DeBello drove up behind D’Amico and her one-year-old child while they were walking down the driveway to feed the horses and honked her horn and basically ran them off the road causing them immediate fear of physical harm. Page 15 of21 91. On or about July 7, 2022, DeBello and her boyfriend Robert Petrillo were making violent physical threats against D’Amico and Lambracht and as a result he was no trespassed from the property. 92 On or about July 26, 2022, D’Amico suffered a miscarriage and was forced to undergo surgery which she attributes to the ongoing distress created by DeBello. 93 DeBello continued her behavior and has stolen security cameras from the home that belonged to D’ Amico and Lambracht. 94 Although being presented with two negotiated offers of settlement, DeBello filed the underlying complaint in Worcester Superior Court on or about August 25, 2022, and service was accepted by DeBello herself on August 29, 2022. 95. A Motion for Lis Pendens was heard and allowed by this Honorable Court on September 1, 2022. 96. DeBello thereafter filed a Verified Complaint, Temporary Restraining Order, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Worcester Housing Court on or about September 7, 2022. COUNT I (Assault) 97. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-96 of this Counterclaim. 98. DeBello placed D’ Amico in fear of imminent battery by driving her truck at her and her child on or about June 30, 2022, as more fully described above. COUNT I (intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 99. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-98 of this Counterclaim. 100. DeBello knew or should have known that emotional distress was likely to be caused by her conduct. 101. DeBello’s conduct was extreme and outrageous. 102. DeBello’s conduct was beyond all bounds of decency. Page 16 of 21 103. DeBello’s conduct caused the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim to suffer severe emotional distress. COUNT II (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) 104. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-103 of this Counterclaim. 105. DeBello’s conduct described above was negligent. 106. DeBello’s negligent conduct caused the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim to suffer severe emotional distress. 107. The emotional distress suffered was evidenced by physical harm as outlined above. 108. A reasonable person would have suffered emotional distress under the circumstances. COUNT IV (Abuse of Process) 109. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-108 of this Counterclaim. 110. DeBello has engaged in legal process for an ulterior or illegitimate purpose which has caused damage to the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim. 111.By DeBello’s actions, she simply has seller’s remorse and is trying to rescind the sale of a home which was validly sold. 112. Further, she is attempting to stay in the home for free, all while she has caused physical damage to the property, physical and emotional damage to the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim and has forced them to incur substantial expenses in defense of these matters. 113. The emotional distress suffered was evidenced by physical harm as outlined above. COUNT V (M.G.L. c. 140, §155 — Dog Bite Statute) 114. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-113 of this Counterclaim. Page 17 of 21 115. DeBello is the owner and keeper of her dog Ebony and is therefore strictly liable for damage caused pursuant to statute. 116.On multiple occasions Ebony has caused physical damage to property owned by Plaintiffs in Counterclaim including, but not limited to, their horses. 117.Plaintiffs in Counterclaim were neither trespassing, teasing or tormenting Ebony at any time. COUNT VI (Conversion) 118. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-117 of this Counterclaim. 119, DeBello has engaged in intentional and wrongful exercise of dominion and control over personal property owned by the Plaintiffs in Counterclaim by placing various locks of her own throughout the property preventing them access to their own belongings as well as stealing items including, but not limited to, security cameras. 120. Ownership of the property has been vested in the Counterclaim Plaintiffs for all relevant times herein. 121. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim suffered damages as a result and have requested DeBello to remove the locks which she has refused. COUNT VII (Unjust Enrichment) 122. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-121 of this Counterclaim. 123. DeBello has continuously resided at the property since closing without paying any expenses of the property whatsoever. 124. DeBello has been provided the utility invoices, through counsel, but has yet to pay anything. 125. DeBello continues to be unjustly enriched at the expense of D’Amico and Lambracht by remaining on the property for free which was never a consideration of any party. COUNT VII (Breach of Contract) Page 18 of 21 126. Plaintiffs in Counterclaim incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-125 of this Counterclaim. 127. Should the Court determine that a legal contract exists, DeBello is in breach of said contract as she has failed to pay her portion of the expenses after being presented with invoices through counsel. 128.D’ Amico and Lambracht have and continue to suffer damages asa result of her breach. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs in Counterclaim demand judgment enter against DeBello on each of the Counts listed above in an amount duly compensating them for their damages, together with all costs, attorney’s fees, multiple, consequential and punitive damages as allowed along with any other relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate and just. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs in Counterclaim hereby demand a trial by jury for all claims so available. Respectfully submitted, KRISTIN D’AMICO & RANDAL LAMBRACHT By ir attorn Dated: September 26, 2022 Anthony J. , Esq) BBO# 674874 ANTHONY S/LUZZO, P.C. 370 Main Street, Suite 900 Worcester, MA 01608 P: (508) 798-8000 F: (508) 798-8006 E: Anthony@luzzolaw.com Page 19 of 21 VERIFICATION I, Kristin D’Amico, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have reviewed the factual allegations contained within this Verified Counterclaim and attest that they are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and as to allegations made on information and belief, I have sufficient grounds to believe them to be true. I further certify that no material facts have been omitted, to the best of my knowledge. iit ico (Sep 26, 2022 1329 EDT) Kristin D’Amico I, Randal Lambracht, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have reviewed the factual allegations contained within this Verified Counterclaim and attest that they are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and as to allegations made on information and belief, I have sufficient grounds to believe them to be true. I further certify that no material facts have been omitted, to the best of my knowledge. Randal Lambracht Page 20 of 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the within Defendants’ Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Verified Counterclaim & Jury Demand was this day served on Counsel of Record for Plaintiff, by way of hand-delivery to the office of Counsel, and by way of electronic mail, to the following: WilliamD. Jalkut, Esq. Fletcher Tilton, P.C 370 Main Street, 8th Floor Worcester, MA 01608 wjalkut@fletchertilton.com Signed this day under the pains and penalties of perjury. Dated: J Jem ber Ab 2022 Ober Anthony 1 Dezag Page 21 of 21 2022.9.26 Answer to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, Verified Counterclaim, & Jury Demand_3 Final Audit Report 2022-09-26 Created: 2022-09-26 By: Kimberly LeDoux (kimberly@revellilaw.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA7NIX4RCc_vTjMW_qefSuwkrE-_FSAmyH "2022.9.26 Answer to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, Verified Counterclaim, & Jury Demand_3" History ©) Document created by Kimberly LeDoux (kimberly@revellilaw.com) 2022-09-26 - 5:02:48 PM GMT- IP address: 66.168.47.182 © Document emailed to kridamico@gmail.com for signature 2022-09-26 - 5:03:38 PM GMT Email viewed by kridamico@gmail.com 2022-09-26 - 5:03:41 PM GMT- IP address: 66.249.91.152 & Signer kridamico@gmail.com entered name at signing as Kristin D'Amico 2022-09-26 - 5:29:01 PM GMT- IP address: 174.242.67.27 % Document e-signed by Kristin D'Amico (kridamico@gmail.com) Signature Date: 2022-09-26 - 5:29:02 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.242.67.27 BR Document emailed to randylambracht@gmail.com for signature 2022-09-26 - 5:29:05 PM GMT Email viewed by randylambracht@gmail.com 2022-09-26 - 5:29:07 PM GMT- IP address: 66.249.91.156 && Signer randylambracht@gmail.com entered name at signing as Randal Lambracht 2022-09-26 - 5:51:20 PM GMT- IP address: 174.242.64.159 & Document e-signed by Randal Lambracht (randylambracht@gmail.com) Signature Date: 2022-09-26 - 5:51:21 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.242.64.159 Adobe Acrobat Sign @ Agreement completed. 2022-09-26 - 5:51:21 PM GMT Adobe Acrobat Sign | Exhibit 1 MIRICK O’CONNELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW Arthur P, Bergeron Mirick O’Connell 1800 West Park Drive, Suite 400 Westborough, MA 01581-3926 abergeron@mirickoconnell.com 1 508.860.1470 £ 508.463.1385 December 14, 2021 Patricia DeBello 8 Carr Road Berlin, MA 01503 Dear Ms. DeBello: It was a pleasure meeting with you, your practically adopted daughter, Kristin D’Amico, her partner, Randy, and their new child, Hayden, as well as my colleague, Attorney Leah Kofos, at our Westborough office on Tuesday, December 7", to discuss your personal and financial situation and your estate planning and asset protection goals and concerns. While you had not completed an Estate Planning Questionnaire, I think you told me that your assets consist approximately of the following: 1 Your home (together with surrounding lands) in Berlin, which you told me has a current value of about $2-million and is subject to a mortgage of $600,000; Various cash or cash equivalent assets that have a total value of about $600,000; and Your 40% interest in a trucking business, the land on which the trucking business is located, and certain adjacent land. You estimated that the total value of those assets is probably $5 million. 40% of that would be $2 million. Therefore, it would appear to me that you at this point, your total net worth is about $4- million. You brought with you a copy of your current Will, which you told me you probably want to alter. The current Will, though, gives your brother-in-law, David DeBello, all of your interest in the trucking company and the real estate. Regarding your remaining assets, you give 30% to your “daughter,” Kristen D’Amico. You give all of your remaining assets to various non-profit entities. We spent a little bit of time talking about the estate tax implications of all of that. If you were to die tomorrow leaving a taxable estate of $4-million, the Massachusetts estate tax would be $286,640. However, any assets that are given to a charitable organization that has IRS Mirick, O’CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP Worcester | WestBorouGH | Boston www.mirickoconnell.com ‘Non Client Matter APB/DEBELLO/A7509 166, DOCX MIRICK O’CONNELL Patricia DeBello December 14, 2021 Page 2 501(c)(3) status, get subtracted from the taxable estate. According to my numbers, if you are leaving 70% of $2-million, or $1.4-million, to non-profit entities, you will thereby reduce your total taxable estate to $2.6-million and reduce the resulting estate tax to $152,080. To the extent that you want to further reduce that estate tax, you could do so by simply instructing the person you named in your power of attorney to give away your remaining cash or cash equivalent assets before you die. If, for example, you gave away the $600,000 that you now have in cash or cash equivalent assets, thereby reducing your remaining taxable estate to only $2-million, you’d be reducing your estate tax to $103,920. Contrary to popular myth, there is no gift tax that would affect you. Incidentally, because a lot of this will be going to your brother-in-law, you may want to specify in your documents that he is agreeing as a condition of the receipt of these funds to pay the estate for his share of the estate tax. While you did not come to the office to talk about this, we ended up spending some time discussing the “problem” that the corporation still has resulting from the fact that a sister of your late husband, who owned and still owns 20% of the shares of the corporation, and who I assume also has a 20% interest in the real estate, was required to leave the company after it was found that she had stolen substantial assets. You told me that there is actually a judgment against her to pay back quite a bit of this, but this is still going to leave you with the fact that she has beneficial interests in the trust that owns the real estate as well as owning shares in the corporation. You would probably help your brother-in-law a great deal if you could spend some time sorting that out now in a way that does not hurt you as a tax matter and ultimately helps your brother-in-law. One suggestion that I made, and which may be worth exploring, would be “watering down” the shares in the corporation so that your sister-i