Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paoluccio v. Wells Fargo, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

January 11, 2019

MARK PAOLUCCIO and LAIRD J. HEAL, Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERVICES 2006-PR2 TRUST, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, MORTGAGE CONTRACTING SERVICE LLC, D/B/A MORTGAGE CONTRACTING SERVICE, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3 and JOHN DOE 4, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT (Docket No. 29)

          TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE

         Mark Paoluccio (“Mr. Paoluccio”) and Laird J. Heal (“Plaintiff”) brought this action asserting claims of forceable entry (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), trespass to chattel (Count III), conversion (Count IV), and breach of fiduciary duty (Count V). Defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgement. (Docket No. 29). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted.

         Background

         On June 19, 2017, Mr. Paoluccio and Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Worcester Superior Court alleging Defendants breached the mortgage granted to Mr. Paoluccio (“the Mortgage”) and that Defendants converted some of Plaintiff's personal possessions.

         Plaintiff, who has been a tenant at the property since 2010, claims that before foreclosure, Defendants wrongfully entered the property and stole his possessions. Plaintiff claims that his possessions are worth $305, 000. Most significantly, Plaintiff alleges Defendants took a rare gold coin worth $300, 000.

         On February 5, 2018, Wells Fargo foreclosed on the Mortgage and, on March 5, 2018, Mr. Paoluccio voluntarily dismissed his claims against Defendants.

         Legal Standard

         Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall grant summary judgment if the moving party shows, based on the materials in the record, “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A factual dispute precludes summary judgment if it is both “genuine” and “material.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). An issue is “genuine” when the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could resolve the point in favor of the nonmoving party. Morris v. Gov't Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746, 748 (1st Cir. 1994). A fact is “material” when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. Id.

         The moving party is responsible for “identifying those portions [of the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986). It can meet its burden either by “offering evidence to disprove an element of the plaintiff's case or by demonstrating an ‘absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'” Rakes v. United States, 352 F.Supp.2d 47, 52 (D. Mass. 2005), aff'd, 442 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548). Once the moving party shows the absence of any disputed material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to place at least one material fact into dispute. Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc., 18 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Scanlon v. Dep't of Army, 277 F.3d 598, 600 (1st Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

         Discussion

         1. Count II

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the Mortgage by failing to provide notice of their intent to inspect the Property. Defendants argue that the claim must be dismissed because Plaintiff was not a party to the Mortgage and consequently lacks privity to assert a breach of contract claim.

         According to Massachusetts law, a breach of contract claim requires the plaintiff either be in privity of contract or establish that he was an intended third-party beneficiary. See Monahan v. Town of Metheun, 408 Mass. 381, 391, 558 N.E.2d 951 (1990) (holding that the “contract claims must fail” since “[t]here is no allegation of any privity of contract . . . And there is no indication or argument presented which would allow the [plaintiffs] to recover under a third party beneficiary theory.”); Orell v. UMass Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 203 F.Supp.2d 52, 68 (D. Mass. 2002) (“Because plaintiff has failed to allege privity of contract between her and the defendants or that she was a third-party beneficiary to the contract . . . her breach of contract claims . . . will be dismissed.”).

         In order to be a third-party beneficiary to a contract, a party must demonstrate that the “‘language and circumstances of the contract' show that the parties to the contract ‘clearly and definitely' intended the beneficiary to benefit from the promised performance.” Doherty v. Admiral's Flagship Condominium Trust, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 104, 111 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In Cumis Ins. Soc. Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of a third-party beneficiary claim where the plaintiffs' complaint “assert[ed] merely the conclusion that they were third-party beneficiaries to the defendants' agreement without setting forth any factual allegations concerning the defendants' intentions.” 455 Mass. 458, 467, 918 N.E.2d 36 (2009); see also Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC v. Maguire, 196 F.Supp.3d 134, 142 (D. Mass. 2016) (“[The plaintiff] ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.