Theran v. Rokoff
| Decision Date | 03 November 1992 |
| Citation | 413 Mass. 590,602 N.E.2d 191 |
| Parties | Harold THERAN & another 1 v. David ROKOFF & others. 2 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Richard J. Fallon, Boston, for plaintiffs.
Peter A. Johnson, Boston, for defendants.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and GREANEY, JJ.
This case presents the question whether absolute immunity should attach to an attorney's letter to persons who are not defendants in an underlying action. We affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants.
It is important to identify the parties to this litigation. The plaintiff Theran is a real estate developer of the Cabot Estate Condominiums. The plaintiff Cabot Estate Development Company is a joint venture of Olympia & York State Street Corp. and Old State Management Corp. which developed the Cabot Estate Condominiums. The defendant, David Rokoff, is an attorney representing the other defendants who are unit owners at the Cabot Estate Condominiums.
In behalf of the other defendants, Rokoff sent a letter, described as a demand letter pursuant to G.L. c. 93A (1990 ed.), addressed to the plaintiffs. "Courtesy" copies were mailed to the trustees of Cabot Estate Condominiums. The demand letter complains of multifarious wrongs allegedly perpetrated by the developers among which are the illegal establishment of common area fees, misrepresentation in the sale of units and parking spaces, mismanagement of the condominium by the developer and trustees, failure to disclose lack of authority to amend the master deed, and violation of G.L. c. 93A, the consumer protection statute.
Summary judgment should be entered (1) when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and (2) when there is substantive law under which such judgment may be entered for the moving party. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). Summary judgment is favored in defamation cases where, as here, the determinative issue is one of law, not of fact. See New England Tractor-Trailer Training of Conn., Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 395 Mass. 471, 480, 480 N.E.2d 1005 (1985). The single issue of law here is whether the defendants enjoyed the benefit of an absolute privilege in transmitting the demand letter to the trustees. The plaintiffs argue that the absolute privilege which protects the defendants in the mailing of the letter to the plaintiffs does not extend its umbrella of protection to the defendants in the transmission to the trustees. We do not agree.
We have held that an attorney is absolutely privileged in sending an allegedly defamatory communication to a person against whom, the communication indicates, the attorney is threatening to bring a law suit. Sriberg...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Symmons v. O'Keeffe
...moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). See, e.g., Theran v. Rokoff, 413 Mass. 590, 591, 602 N.E.2d 191 (1992); Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Allianz Ins. Co., 413 Mass. 473, 476, 597 N.E.2d 439 (1992). "[The ]party moving ......
-
Meltzer v. Grant
...preliminary to litigation." Sriberg v. Raymond, 370 Mass. at 109, 345 N.E.2d 882. The privilege is absolute. Theran v. Rokoff, 413 Mass. at 591-592, 602 N.E.2d 191; Sullivan v. Birmingham, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 359, 361, 416 N.E.2d 528 (1981). An absolute privilege provides a complete defense eve......
-
Doe v. Nutter, McClennen & Fish
...of misconduct against South Shore and the doctor was contained in the privileged thirty-day demand letter, see Theran v. Rokoff, 413 Mass. 590, 602 N.E.2d 191 (1992), and consequently any threat by the defendants to sue based on that letter could not have been made in good faith or been the......
-
Visnick v. Caulfield
..."Summary judgment is favored in defamation cases where ... the determinative issue is one of law, not of fact." Theran v. Rokoff, 413 Mass. 590, 591, 602 N.E.2d 191 (1992).4 Caulfield claims that the absolute litigation privilege the statements made in her letter dated January 12, 2005, and......