Opinion
No. 12–P–242.
2013-01-24
Jack SAADE v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MARINER CONDOMINIUM.
By the Court (CYPHER, BROWN & COHEN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A judge of the Housing Court allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). The pro se plaintiff has appealed from the ensuing order. We think the motion to dismiss was correctly allowed.
The judge concluded that the facts set forth in the complaint did not support a claim of breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the defendant. Noting that no other unit owners joined in the complaint, the judge deemed the allegations of the complaint speculative, as they were grounded solely in the plaintiff's “own personal investigation.” The judge properly concluded that the defendant did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff as an individual unit owner, and that even if the action had been brought as a derivative action, it failed as matter of law.
Accordingly, based on the judge's reasoning and authorities cited in his decision, we affirm the order allowing the motion to dismiss.
So ordered.