Choquette v. Isacoff
Decision Date | 27 October 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04-P-1519.,04-P-1519. |
Citation | 836 N.E.2d 329,65 Mass. App. Ct. 1 |
Parties | John H. CHOQUETTE, Jr. v. Richard ISACOFF. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Terry M. Ford for the plaintiff.
Michael K. Callan, Springfield, for the defendant.
Present: PERRETTA, DREBEN, & GELINAS, JJ.
John H. Choquette, Jr., appeals the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of his former attorney, Richard Isacoff. Choquette claims the motion judge erred in extending the doctrine of in pari delicto to a case of legal malpractice. Choquette additionally appeals the denial of a subsequently filed motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
Choquette retained Isacoff to assist him in dealing with a pending judicial sale of his assets to satisfy a civil judgment. Isacoff prepared, and Choquette signed under pains of perjury, a skeleton bankruptcy petition, that is, one not containing schedules of assets and liabilities, pursuant to Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Filing the petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts halted the judicial sale of some of Choquette's properties. Choquette later signed schedules purporting to list all of his assets and liabilities. These schedules were also signed under pains of perjury. Choquette was advised by Isacoff's secretary that the schedules could be amended if they were not true and accurate. A decision was made to go forward with the Chapter 7 proceedings, and a hearing was scheduled before the Bankruptcy Court.
Prior to the hearing, Choquette became aware of certain omissions in the schedules, and alerted Isacoff to the discrepancies. Among other things, the schedules listed Choquette's current income at "0," although he received a substantial amount of monthly income from a variety of personal real estate trusts. The schedules were not corrected. At the bankruptcy hearing, testifying under oath, Choquette gave false answers to questions concerning his income. In response to questions concerning income from real estate, he failed to correct the information contained in the schedules and testified that his sister, and maybe his daughter, were the beneficiaries of the trusts and received the income.
Becoming aware of the false information, the Chapter 7 trustee (trustee) filed an adversary proceeding against Choquette. The trustee's complaint listed five counts: objection to discharge; fraudulent conveyance of real estate; fraudulent conveyance of stock; turnover of real estate; and turnover of stock. Choquette subsequently entered into an agreement for judgment in favor of the trustee. As to the objection to discharge, Choquette agreed to a judgment against him under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3); this provision denies discharge where the debtor "concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information." 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) (2000). Choquette additionally agreed to the entry of a judgment against him on the counts of fraudulent conveyance of real estate and fraudulent conveyance of stock, if he failed to comply with the terms of the agreement based on the trustee filing an affidavit of noncompliance.
With new counsel, Choquette brought this action in Superior Court against Isacoff, asserting breach of contract; misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit; breach of implied warranty of workmanlike performance; negligence; and violations of G.L. c. 93A. In a deposition with respect to this case, Choquette claimed that as a result of his interactions with Isacoff, he did not give complete and full disclosure, resulting in untrue and inaccurate disclosures to the trustee. Isacoff moved for summary judgment, claiming that Choquette's claims were barred by the doctrines of in pari delicto and res judicata. In allowing the motion, the judge endorsed the motion "[e]ssentially for the reasons set forth in Section II(B) of the defendant's memorandum of law." Section II(B) of the memorandum sets out Isacoff's claim that Choquette should be denied recovery as he was in pari delicto.
We conduct our review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment according to familiar standards, to determine "whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Recr. Gen., 443 Mass. 837, 845, 825 N.E.2d 78 (2005).
The doctrine of in pari delicto bars a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages for loss resulting from the wrongdoing. See Scattaretico v. Puglisi, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 138, 140 n. 6, 799 N.E.2d 1258 (2003) ( ). The doctrine, of long standing, rests on the theory that courts will not lend aid to parties who base their cause of action on their own immoral or illegal acts. See Atwood v. Fisk, 101 Mass. 363, 364 (1869). As stated in Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co., 114 Mass. 149, 154 (1873), the doctrine provides that "[w]hen two parties, acting together, commit an illegal or wrongful act, the party who is held responsible in damages for the act cannot have indemnity or contribution from the other, because both are equally culpable, . . . and the damage results from their joint offence." See Stewart v. Roy Bros., 358 Mass. 446, 458-459, 265 N.E.2d 357 (1970).
In Massachusetts, the rule has its usual application with respect to the attempted enforcement of illegal contracts, and in equitable proceedings where both parties come before the court with unclean hands. See, e.g., Bryant v. Peck & Whipple Co., 154 Mass. 460, 461, 28 N.E. 678 (1891); Lyons v. Elston, 211 Mass. 478, 482, 98 N.E. 93 (1912); Berman v. Coakley, 243 Mass. 348, 350, 137 N.E. 667 (1923); Nussenbaum v. Chambers & Chambers Inc., 322 Mass. 419, 421-422, 77 N.E.2d 780 (1948). See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 197-198 (1981).
1 Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 423, at 399-400 (14th ed.1918) (footnotes omitted). See Berman v. Coakley, 243 Mass. at 350, 137 N.E. 667. Thus, relief in equity may be obtained where there is an inequality of position between the wrongdoers, or where public policy dictates.
There has been no instance in Massachusetts in which the doctrine of in pari delicto has been applied in a legal malpractice action where both the attorney and the client conspired in the wrongdoing. Several other States, however, have considered in pari delicto in this context, and have applied the rule, and not the exception, in cases where a claim of legal malpractice is brought by clients seeking damages from their attorneys, and where the clients engaged in dishonest or immoral practices in the matter.
In Pantely v. Garris, Garris & Garris, P.C., 180 Mich.App. 768, 447 N.W.2d 864 (1989), the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that a client could not recover from her attorneys in a malpractice action, where the client perpetrated a fraud on the court by lying under oath about her residency status in a divorce action, even though she so testified upon advice of her attorneys. Id. at 770-771, 447 N.W.2d 864. The court determined that the client was in pari delicto with her attorneys, and that she should "bear the untoward consequences of [her] wrongdoing without legal recompense or recourse." Id. at 774, 447 N.W.2d 864. As to the client's argument that an exception to the doctrine should apply, since she lied at the direction of her attorneys, the court determined that simple perjury is not the type of action contemplated by the exception. Id. at 775-776, 447 N.W.2d 864. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merrimack Coll. v. KPMG LLP, SJC-12434
...plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages for loss resulting from the wrongdoing." Choquette v. Isacoff, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3, 836 N.E.2d 329 (2005). The main issue presented in this civil case is whether, where the plaintiff is an organization acting through it......
-
Cannonball Fund, Ltd. v. Dutchess Capital Mgmt., LLC
...a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages for loss resulting from the wrongdoing.” Choquette v. Isacoff, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 3, 836 N.E.2d 329 (2005). 38. Nothing in this opinion forecloses the possibility of discovery or other further factual development with re......
-
Fine v. Sovereign Bank, Civil Action No. 06CV11450-NG.
..."bars a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages resulting from the wrongdoing." Choquette v. Isacoff, 65 Mass.App. Ct. 1, 3, 836 N.E.2d 329 (2005). Thus, it is an equitable affirmative defense similar to the concept of unclean hands.17 Nisselson v. Lernout, 469 ......
-
In re High Voltage Engineering Corp.
...embraced the in pari delicto defense. See, e.g., Council v. Cohen, 303 Mass. 348, 21 N.E.2d 967, 970 (1939); Choquette v. Isacoff, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 836 N.E.2d 329, 332 (2005). As originally conceived, the in pad delicto doctrine forged a defense of limited utility. Over time, however, cou......