Bullard v. Chase

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Bullard v. Chase

396 N.E.2d 722, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 926

DecidedNovember 13, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 396 N.E.2d 722 (Bullard v. Chase) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bullard v. Chase, 396 N.E.2d 722, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 926 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

It was error to enter summary judgment against the plaintiffs in their action under G. L. c. 93A, for unfair and deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale of real property to them by the defendant. The defendant asserted in his motion for summary judgment that in light of Lantner v. Carson, 374 Mass. 606 (1978), the plaintiffs’ c. 93A action could not be maintained against him. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs’ affidavits in response to the motion raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, under the holding of the Lantner case, the sale of real property by the defendant was a strictly private transaction, not subject to c. 93A. That question should be resolved at trial, not on a motion for summary judgment. See Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553-556 (1976); Young v. Reed, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 18, 19 (1978).

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

It was error to enter summary judgment against the plaintiffs in their action under G. L. c. 93A, for unfair and deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale of real property to them by the defendant. The defendant asserted in his motion for summary judgment that in light of Lantner v. Carson, 374 Mass. 606 (1978), the plaintiffs’ c. 93A action could not be maintained against him. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs’ affidavits in response to the motion raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, under the holding of the Lantner case, the sale of real property by the defendant was a strictly private transaction, not subject to c. 93A. That question should be resolved at trial, not on a motion for summary judgment. See Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 553-556 (1976); Young v. Reed, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 18, 19 (1978).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 N.E.2d 722, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-chase-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack