Bank of America v. Prestige Imports

23 Citing cases

  1. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc.

    84 Mass. App. Ct. 1106 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 This case returns to us following a jury trial on remand, pursuant to Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc., 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 917 N.E.2d 207 (2009) ( Prestige I ). The plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. (bank), appeals from the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

  2. Commonwealth v. (And

    86 Mass. App. Ct. 174 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 14 times

    I. Restitution-based appeal. A. Background. A detailed account of the defendant's offenses appears in Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc., 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 742–747, 917 N.E.2d 207 (2009) (Prestige I ). One element of the “sophisticated and complex” scheme, id. 742, 917 N.E.2d 207, extending from 1988 to 1990 illustrated his involvement of banks in a process of embezzlement from the dealership, Prestige Imports, Inc. (Prestige).

  3. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc.

    89 Mass. App. Ct. 741 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016)

    In 1992, attorney George Deptula agreed to represent Prestige Imports, Inc., and its principals, Helmut Schmidt and his wife Renate Schmidt (collectively, Prestige), on a contingent fee basis in litigation with South Shore Bank and, later, its acquirer, Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), in exchange for a nonrefundable retainer and a percentage of any recovery on Prestige's counterclaims. After victories at two trials and a reversal of those victories by this court, see Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc., 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 917 N.E.2d 207 (2009) ( Prestige Imports ), Deptula withdrew from the case without Prestige's consent in April, 2010. Represented by different counsel, Prestige won a judgment of $27,031,568.

  4. Premier Capital, LLC v. KMZ, Inc.

    464 Mass. 467 (Mass. 2013)   Cited 55 times
    In Premier Capital, LLC v. KMZ, Inc., 464 Mass. 467, 471, 984 N.E.2d 286 (2013), the Supreme Judicial Court examined G. L. c. 106, § 3-118 -- which is part of art. 3 of the UCC, the law of negotiable instruments -- and concluded that it "created a uniform statute of limitations for all actions arising under art. 3."

    G.L. c. 106, § 3–113. “That version ... remained in effect, with some amendments, until 1998, when Massachusetts adopted the 1990[UCC] revisions, which, with a few amendments, remain in effect today.” Bank of Am., N.A.v. Prestige Imports, 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 748 n. 11, 917 N.E.2d 207 (2009). In light of the UCC's clearly stated purpose to provide a uniform statute of limitations for all actions under art. 3, we conclude that the omission of former § 3–113 from the revised art. 3 has no bearing on the applicability of the statute of limitations set forth in G.L. c. 106, § 3–118, and that G.L. c. 106, § 3–118, applies to all negotiable instruments, sealed and unsealed.

  5. Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs.

    No. 19-2001 (1st Cir. Aug. 6, 2021)

    Id. (collecting cases); see also Bank of Am., N.A.v. Prestige Imports, 917 N.E.2d 207, 229 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009)("A 'breach of a legal obligation under commercial law, without more, does not amount to an unfair or deceptive act under G.L. c. 93A.'")(quoting Framingham Auto Sales, Inc.v. Workers' Credit Union, 671 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)). Occasionally, the Massachusetts courts and the First Circuit have noted "rascality" in reference to the Chapter 93A extreme or egregious standard.

  6. Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.

    8 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021)   Cited 20 times

    Id. (collecting cases); see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. Prestige Imports, 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 917 N.E.2d 207, 229 (2009) ("A ‘breach of a legal obligation under commercial law, without more, does not amount to an unfair or deceptive act under G.L. c. 93A.’ ")(quoting Framingham Auto Sales, Inc. v. Workers' Credit Union, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 416, 671 N.E.2d 963, 965 (1996) ).

  7. Edlow v. RBW, LLC

    688 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 34 times
    Affirming denial when “the factual predicates on which the proposed amended complaint is based are the same as those in the original complaint and were known to [plaintiff] before he filed suit”

    Without more, this conclusory allegation does not survive. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955;see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc., 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 917 N.E.2d 207, 218 (2009) (quoting Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc., 297 Mass. 398, 8 N.E.2d 895 (1937)) (“ ‘[Bad faith] is not simply bad judgment. It is not merely negligence.... It implies conscious doing of wrong.

  8. Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.

    19-cv-07541 (ALC) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    R&R at 25. She found that to determine motive, both New York and Massachusetts law requires the Court to “‘focus on the subjective, specifically on knowing and purposeful misbehavior' by Cengage, whose purpose in adopting and implementing the DRA Framework was common to all members of the [Proposed Classes].” Id. at 26 (quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. Prestige Imps., 75 Mass.App.Ct. 741, 754-55 (App. Ct. 2009)). Judge Cave rejected Cengage's argument that motive must be proved on an author-by-author basis.

  9. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Rda Constr. Corp.

    Civil Action No. 13-11593-DJC (D. Mass. Sep. 3, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    By law, lack of good faith is "not simply bad judgment" or "negligence" but "implies conscious doing of wrong" and "imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity." MPF Corp., 2010 WL 5452721, at *3 (quoting Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestige Imports, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 741, 754 (2009)). Accordingly, courts have recognized that a surety's failure to mitigate or minimize losses is no defense against an indemnity claim where the indemnity contract permits the surety to recover for payments made in good faith.

  10. Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. D.N. Lukens, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-cv-10460-TSH (D. Mass. May. 29, 2013)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    To prevail on a claim of unfair or deceptive business practices, Lukens must show Utica engaged in "immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous" tactics. Bank of America, N.A. v. Prestige Imports, Inc., 75 Mass. App. Ct. 741, 770, 917 N.E.2d 207 (2009). An insurer's reasonable and good faith assertion of a legal position and the taking of active steps to resolve a dispute with its insured, do not constitute unfair or deceptive business practices, even if the insurer's position "ultimately [is] held to be based on a misinterpretation of the law."