Opinion ID: 6321287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fraud on the merits

Text: Under Massachusetts law, the elements for common law fraud and fraudulent inducement are the same. See United States v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 323 F. Supp. 2d 151, 199 (D. Mass. 2004). To prove either cause of action, the petitioner must establish that: (1) the statement was knowingly false, (2) defendants made the statement with the intent to deceive, (3) the statement was material, (4) plaintiff reasonably relied on the statement, and (5) plaintiff was injured as a result of its reliance. Id. (citing Turner v. Johnson & Johnson, 809 F.2d 90, 95 (1st Cir. 1986) (applying Massachusetts law)). As discussed above, Katz alleges Belveron and Sisler misrepresented the likelihood of a sale, as well as the value of the Property and her Special Interest. She affirms that absent these misrepresentations; she would not have sold her Special Interest. Even when viewing the record in the light most favorable to Katz, her claims of fraud fail on the merits. The record reflects that statements made by Sisler and - 18 - Belveron regarding the likelihood of a sale and the value of the Property were not knowingly false. Katz has reiterated throughout litigation that she believed her Special Interest and Property were worth more than Appellees stated when trying to purchase her interest. Yet, Sisler supported his initial $1.1 million offer with two refinancing estimates. See Zimmerman v. Kent, 575 N.E.2d 70, 75 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991) (A statement on which liability for misrepresentation may be based must be one of fact, not of expectation, estimate, opinion, or judgment.). Even after the sale, internal communications show that Sisler believed that in 2016, the Property was worth approximately $6.5 million. On her part, Katz only offers her personal unsubstantiated assessment as proof that the Property was worth more than what Appellees represented. This is insufficient to controvert the evidence on the record or otherwise establish that Belveron and Sisler intentionally misrepresented the value of the Property and her Special Interest. Notably, she did not have the Property nor her Special Interest appraised prior to accepting AHP's $1.5 million offer. On one hand, Katz asserts that her real-estate experience alone qualifies her to determine that Belveron misrepresented the value of the Property. On the other hand, Katz wants to maintain that she lacked the ability to adequately assess Belveron and AHP's offers. She cannot have it both ways. - 19 - Similarly, Appellees have shown they were intent on retaining the Property due to its substantial and guaranteed cashflow. They allowed Daitch to pursue a potential sale solely given a recent shift in the real estate market. However, Appellees expressed surprise and shock when the Property fetched $11.7 million. Once again, Katz has not been able to controvert that, when they were made, the pertinent representations regarding keeping the Property were not knowingly false or reckless.