On August 24, 2018 a
Jury Demand
was filed
involving a dispute between
Shapiro, Jordan L.,
and
Amato, Susan B.,
Croteau, Donna M.,
Croteau, Richard,
Geer, Brian,
Geer, Cynthia A,
Geer, Daniel E.,
Geer, Doris,
Geer, Paul R.,
Geer, Robert F.,
Geer, Wayne,
Hinton, Rosemary,
Kuchlewski, Patricia,
Morse, Lorraine L.,
for Contract / Business Cases
in the District Court of Middlesex County.
Preview
i
COMMONWEALTH O MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1881CV02451
a
) Fl €D
JORDAN L. SHAPIRO ne rn OF THE
Plaintiff, OCR ERER
CRT
2 Bis
NOV
DANIEL GEER, et al.
Defendants
ff CLERK
(Ofew
DEFENDANT DANIEL GEER’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER
AND CROSS-CLAIM .
Paragraph 1 through Paragraph 13 — Admitted
Paragraph 14 — Admitted
Paragraph 15 — 16 — Admitted
.
Paragraph 16 — Denied and Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same.
Paragraph 17 — Denied and Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same.
Paragraph 18 — Denied in part and Defendant states that the deeds of Daniel E. Greer and
Cynthia A. Geer were procured by deception and fraud and calls upon Plaintiff to prove that said
two deeds were lawfully transferred for consideration. |
|
Paragraph 19 -- Denied. |
COUNT 1
Paragraph 20 — Admitted.
COUNT II
Paragraph 21 — Admitted.
Paragraph 22 — Denied.
COUNT III
Paragraph 23 — Denied and Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same.
COUNT IV
Paragraph 24 — Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph but
states that any reimbursement to Doris Geer for the benefit of Scott Cook should be deducted
from Doris Geer’s share of the proceeds only.
COUNT V
Paragraph 25 — Denied and calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party, to wit: Doris Geer, in that any claim must be
brought by her and not the Plaintiff in interpleader.
2. The Plaintiff is barred under the doctrine of equitable estoppel from seeking the return of the
amount of $95,591.16 from the Defendant because all Defendants and their respective Attorneys
agreed to said distribution at the real estate closing for reimbursement of the loans that the said
Susan Amato and Rosemary Hinton made to pay off delinquent taxes and a loan from the city of
Malden; and that said defendants relied upon that agreement in paying the loan. |
3. The Plaintiff waived the right to object to the distribution of $95,591.16 to the Defendants
Susan Amato and Rosemary Hinton by agreeing to it at closing.
4. The Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches from seeking the return of the $95,591.16
since the Defendants all agreed to the distribution of said funds at closing on March 28, 2018. ©
|
t
1
5. Doris Geer is guilty of unclean hands in that she has failed to provide a proper ‘accounting of
the rental income and costs and expenses during the time that she lived rent-free on the property
for fifteen years; and is therefore barred from receiving any distribution of the proceeds of the
sale of the family home that is presently being held by this Honorable Court.
CROSS -CLAIM OF DEFENDANT DANIEL GEER AGAINST DEFENDANT
DORIS GEER
FACTS
1. Plaintiff in cross -claim is Daniel Geer. Defendant in cross-claim is Doris Geer. Daniel Geer
repeats Paragraphs 1 through 16 above.
2. Following the death of their mother in 1989 a sister of the Plaintiff in cross -claim, Lorraine
L. Morse, lived at the family home which was left to all twelve children, located at 31 Mt.
Vernon Park, Malden, Massachusetts (the “real estate”). Lorraine paid rent of $500 per month
and also paid taxes and a monthly loan from the city of Malden-from rental income she received
at the property. Lorraine moved out of the home in 2006. Doris Geer lived at the property from
2001 to 2016 and never paid rent. |1
3. The home was a two family dwelling. Doris Greer rented rooms to many tenants over the
years and collected rent money. Doris has never given her siblings an accounting of the rental
income aud expenses despite being asked by Defendants and Plaintiff in Cross- clain: Danie!
Geer by his Attorney.
4, It was the Defendant in Cross-claim Doris Geer’s responsibility to pay real estate taxes and 4
loan from the City of Malden on the family home out of the rental income that she was receiving.
She was engaged in the real estate business when she was collecting rent and paying bills for thie
1
real estate. t
5. Doris Geer failed to pay the real estate taxes and the mortgage. In 2013 the City of Malden
notified Doris Geer that they were foreclosing on the property for failure to make payments on‘
their loan and failure to pay real estate taxes.
6. The Defendant Susan B. Amato paid the back real estate taxes and loan to the City of Malden
on December 18, 2013 in the amount of $95,591.16. ‘
7. In October, 2013, Doris Geer made untrue and deceptive statements to Daniel Geer in order to
induce him to sign over his interest in the real estate to her. She stated that she needed him to |
sign the deed in order to stop the foreclosure by the City of Malden.
8. Doris Geer falsely and deceptively stated that she was using the rental receipts to pay-bills for
the real estate. In fact, she was diverting the money and using it for her own purposes.
9. Daniel Geer was injured by Doris Geer’s unfair and deceptive business practices when he
lost money due to the diversion of funds by Doris, and when he transferred his interest for no
consideration due to false statements by Doris.
I. Deceit and Fraud Claim Against Doris Geer
10. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-9, as if
expressly set forth herein.
|
11. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for deceit and fraud, and this
deceit and fraud caused Daniel to sustain financial injury.
il. Breach of Contract Claims Against Doris Geer
12. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-11, as if
expressly set forth herein. i
|
13. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for breach of implied and '
'
express contract, and this breach caused Daniel to sustain financial injury.
lil. Equitable Claims Against Doris Geer
14. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-13, as if
expressly set forth herein.
15. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for equitable claims. Daniel
1
demands that Doris furnish him with an accounting of funds received and paid, pay a fair rent for
the time she occupied the real estate rent free, disgorge funds that she collected and used for her
personal benefit, and forfeit her share of the real estate due to her unclean hands.
IV. Unfair Business Practices Claim Against Doris Geer
16. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-15, as if
expressly set forth herein.
17. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for unfair business practices
under GL c. 93A, and these unfair business practices caused Daniel to sustain financial injury
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff in Cross -claim Daniel Geer prays that this Honorable Court
I
(A) Order the Defendant in Cross- claim Doris Greer prepare and present to this Honorable
Court an accounting of all rental income and expenses for the time that she lived at the home tent
free for fifteen years from 2001 to 2018.
|
(B) Order a deduction from Doris Greer’s share in an amount that is fair and reasonable for
living at the property rent-free from 2001 until 2018.
(C) Order that the Plaintiff in Cross-claim Daniel Geer receives his fair pro rata share of the
proceeds held by this Honorable Court plus interest. 1
(D) Order that any money allocated for the repayment of a purported loan of $10,000 by Scott
Cook to Doris Geer alleged in Plaintiff's paragraph 24 and Count IV of the original Plaintiff” §
complaint be deducted from the share of Doris Geer only.
(E) That this Honorable Court, after notice and opportunity to be heard, Order a fair and
equitable division and distribution of the escrowed funds that have been interpleaded with this
Honorable Court.
(F) Award compensatory, triple and punitive damages to the plaintiff;
(G) Award the plaintiff the costs of this action including reasonable attorney's fees;
(H) Impose a constructive trust and a resulting trust upon the proceeds of the sale of the
real estate, and order Doris to disgorge all of the money she cannot account for; and
(D Award whatever additional relief this Court deems necessary and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
A jury trial is hereby demanded.
Attorney for the Plaintiff in Cross-claim
CL df
DAVID M. HASS: BBO# 542237
LAW OFFICES OF BURTON J. HASS
640 Main Street
Malden MA 02148-3919
(781) 322-3900
BJHlaw@msn.com
October 31, 2018
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, DAVID M. HASS, hereby certify that on this date, I served a copy of the within
document upon all parties by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Jordan L. Shapiro, Esq.
Shapiro & Hender
P.O. Box 392
Malden, MA 02148
Kenny Mazonson, Esq.
640 Main Street
Malden, MA 02148
Charles Rotundi, Esq.
79 State Street
Newburyport, MA 01959
DAVID M. HASS
bn bb
Dated: October 31, 2018
Preview
i COMMONWEALTH O MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1881CV02451 a ) Fl €D JORDAN L. SHAPIRO ne rn OF THE Plaintiff, OCR ERER CRT 2 Bis NOV DANIEL GEER, et al. Defendants ff CLERK (Ofew DEFENDANT DANIEL GEER’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER AND CROSS-CLAIM . Paragraph 1 through Paragraph 13 — Admitted Paragraph 14 — Admitted Paragraph 15 — 16 — Admitted . Paragraph 16 — Denied and Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same. Paragraph 17 — Denied and Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same. Paragraph 18 — Denied in part and Defendant states that the deeds of Daniel E. Greer and Cynthia A. Geer were procured by deception and fraud and calls upon Plaintiff to prove that said two deeds were lawfully transferred for consideration. | | Paragraph 19 -- Denied. | COUNT 1 Paragraph 20 — Admitted. COUNT II Paragraph 21 — Admitted. Paragraph 22 — Denied. COUNT III Paragraph 23 — Denied and Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same. COUNT IV Paragraph 24 — Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this paragraph but states that any reimbursement to Doris Geer for the benefit of Scott Cook should be deducted from Doris Geer’s share of the proceeds only. COUNT V Paragraph 25 — Denied and calls upon Plaintiff to prove the same. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party, to wit: Doris Geer, in that any claim must be brought by her and not the Plaintiff in interpleader. 2. The Plaintiff is barred under the doctrine of equitable estoppel from seeking the return of the amount of $95,591.16 from the Defendant because all Defendants and their respective Attorneys agreed to said distribution at the real estate closing for reimbursement of the loans that the said Susan Amato and Rosemary Hinton made to pay off delinquent taxes and a loan from the city of Malden; and that said defendants relied upon that agreement in paying the loan. | 3. The Plaintiff waived the right to object to the distribution of $95,591.16 to the Defendants Susan Amato and Rosemary Hinton by agreeing to it at closing. 4. The Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches from seeking the return of the $95,591.16 since the Defendants all agreed to the distribution of said funds at closing on March 28, 2018. © | t 1 5. Doris Geer is guilty of unclean hands in that she has failed to provide a proper ‘accounting of the rental income and costs and expenses during the time that she lived rent-free on the property for fifteen years; and is therefore barred from receiving any distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the family home that is presently being held by this Honorable Court. CROSS -CLAIM OF DEFENDANT DANIEL GEER AGAINST DEFENDANT DORIS GEER FACTS 1. Plaintiff in cross -claim is Daniel Geer. Defendant in cross-claim is Doris Geer. Daniel Geer repeats Paragraphs 1 through 16 above. 2. Following the death of their mother in 1989 a sister of the Plaintiff in cross -claim, Lorraine L. Morse, lived at the family home which was left to all twelve children, located at 31 Mt. Vernon Park, Malden, Massachusetts (the “real estate”). Lorraine paid rent of $500 per month and also paid taxes and a monthly loan from the city of Malden-from rental income she received at the property. Lorraine moved out of the home in 2006. Doris Geer lived at the property from 2001 to 2016 and never paid rent. |1 3. The home was a two family dwelling. Doris Greer rented rooms to many tenants over the years and collected rent money. Doris has never given her siblings an accounting of the rental income aud expenses despite being asked by Defendants and Plaintiff in Cross- clain: Danie! Geer by his Attorney. 4, It was the Defendant in Cross-claim Doris Geer’s responsibility to pay real estate taxes and 4 loan from the City of Malden on the family home out of the rental income that she was receiving. She was engaged in the real estate business when she was collecting rent and paying bills for thie 1 real estate. t 5. Doris Geer failed to pay the real estate taxes and the mortgage. In 2013 the City of Malden notified Doris Geer that they were foreclosing on the property for failure to make payments on‘ their loan and failure to pay real estate taxes. 6. The Defendant Susan B. Amato paid the back real estate taxes and loan to the City of Malden on December 18, 2013 in the amount of $95,591.16. ‘ 7. In October, 2013, Doris Geer made untrue and deceptive statements to Daniel Geer in order to induce him to sign over his interest in the real estate to her. She stated that she needed him to | sign the deed in order to stop the foreclosure by the City of Malden. 8. Doris Geer falsely and deceptively stated that she was using the rental receipts to pay-bills for the real estate. In fact, she was diverting the money and using it for her own purposes. 9. Daniel Geer was injured by Doris Geer’s unfair and deceptive business practices when he lost money due to the diversion of funds by Doris, and when he transferred his interest for no consideration due to false statements by Doris. I. Deceit and Fraud Claim Against Doris Geer 10. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-9, as if expressly set forth herein. | 11. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for deceit and fraud, and this deceit and fraud caused Daniel to sustain financial injury. il. Breach of Contract Claims Against Doris Geer 12. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-11, as if expressly set forth herein. i | 13. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for breach of implied and ' ' express contract, and this breach caused Daniel to sustain financial injury. lil. Equitable Claims Against Doris Geer 14. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-13, as if expressly set forth herein. 15. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for equitable claims. Daniel 1 demands that Doris furnish him with an accounting of funds received and paid, pay a fair rent for the time she occupied the real estate rent free, disgorge funds that she collected and used for her personal benefit, and forfeit her share of the real estate due to her unclean hands. IV. Unfair Business Practices Claim Against Doris Geer 16. The plaintiff in Cross-claim, Daniel Geer, hereby repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-15, as if expressly set forth herein. 17. Defendant-in-Crossclaim Doris Geer is liable to Daniel Geer for unfair business practices under GL c. 93A, and these unfair business practices caused Daniel to sustain financial injury WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff in Cross -claim Daniel Geer prays that this Honorable Court I (A) Order the Defendant in Cross- claim Doris Greer prepare and present to this Honorable Court an accounting of all rental income and expenses for the time that she lived at the home tent free for fifteen years from 2001 to 2018. | (B) Order a deduction from Doris Greer’s share in an amount that is fair and reasonable for living at the property rent-free from 2001 until 2018. (C) Order that the Plaintiff in Cross-claim Daniel Geer receives his fair pro rata share of the proceeds held by this Honorable Court plus interest. 1 (D) Order that any money allocated for the repayment of a purported loan of $10,000 by Scott Cook to Doris Geer alleged in Plaintiff's paragraph 24 and Count IV of the original Plaintiff” § complaint be deducted from the share of Doris Geer only. (E) That this Honorable Court, after notice and opportunity to be heard, Order a fair and equitable division and distribution of the escrowed funds that have been interpleaded with this Honorable Court. (F) Award compensatory, triple and punitive damages to the plaintiff; (G) Award the plaintiff the costs of this action including reasonable attorney's fees; (H) Impose a constructive trust and a resulting trust upon the proceeds of the sale of the real estate, and order Doris to disgorge all of the money she cannot account for; and (D Award whatever additional relief this Court deems necessary and appropriate. JURY DEMAND A jury trial is hereby demanded. Attorney for the Plaintiff in Cross-claim CL df DAVID M. HASS: BBO# 542237 LAW OFFICES OF BURTON J. HASS 640 Main Street Malden MA 02148-3919 (781) 322-3900 BJHlaw@msn.com October 31, 2018 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, DAVID M. HASS, hereby certify that on this date, I served a copy of the within document upon all parties by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, to: Jordan L. Shapiro, Esq. Shapiro & Hender P.O. Box 392 Malden, MA 02148 Kenny Mazonson, Esq. 640 Main Street Malden, MA 02148 Charles Rotundi, Esq. 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01959 DAVID M. HASS bn bb Dated: October 31, 2018