Court Opinion

ID: 9710149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:03:04.665306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.631487
License: Public Domain

Liacos, C. J.
(concurring). I reluctantly agree with the court that the trial judge’s ruling that the defendant committed a G. L. c. 93A violation was clearly erroneous. I write separately to point out that this opinion should not be read as condoning the course of conduct carried out by the defendant throughout this transaction, and to express my dissatisfaction with the result of this case, which, I concede, is compelled on the record before us.
*386The plaintiffs’ complaint focused on the events surrounding the foreclosure on the property by the defendant, and, thus, those are the only events on which this court is passing in deciding whether there was a violation of G. L. c. 93A. I express serious doubt, however, whether other conduct by the defendant, not alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint, would have passed scrutiny under c. 9 3A.
The record reveals that the “principal” amount of the loan by Union was $19,800, but the defendant retained an 18% “discount” amounting to $3,564, plus a $75 “acquisition fee,” so that only $16,161 of the $19,800 actually went toward the work done on the plaintiffs’ home. This financing scheme hardly can be characterized as anything but usurious. See G. L. c. 271, § 49.
This same document in the record, dated October 8, 1986, also reveals that the defendant’s approval of the loan was subject to the following condition, among others: “First [mortgage] to be current and not to exceed $36K [$36,000].” The record further reveals that the first mortgage, dated June 19, 1986, less than four months before the second mortgage, was in the principal amount of $55,000. There is no suggestion in the record that the above condition was satisfied, namely, that the plaintiffs should have paid off about $19,000 of the first loan before the loan by the defendant was made. In fact, the plaintiffs’ sister, who maintained the family finances and paid' the bills, testified that over $55,000 was owed on the first mortgage at the time of the fire, in August, 1987. Thus, the defendant made this loan even though its condition had not been met. This suggests that the defendant made a loan which, by the defendant’s own recognition, the plaintiffs were unlikely to have the ability to repay unless the first mortgage was greatly reduced.
The record therefore reveals that a seemingly usurious loan, which never should have been made, resulted in the plaintiffs’ losing their interest in their homestead. I find it difficult to imagine a transaction which more appropriately could be characterized as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs did not put the entire trans*387action before the court below, and so this court is compelled to find in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, I must concur, although I do so reluctantly.