Romanoff v. Balcom

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Romanoff v. Balcom

339 N.E.2d 927, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 768, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 540

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 339 N.E.2d 927 (Romanoff v. Balcom) 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

Romanoff v. Balcom, 339 N.E.2d 927, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 768, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 540 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

The complaint was properly dismissed under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974). No claim is stated for deceit (see Graphic Arts Finishers, Inc. v. Boston Redevelopment Authy. 357 Mass. 40, 44 [1970]) or negligent misrepresentation (see Craig v. Everett M. Brooks Co. 351 Mass. 497, 499-501 [1967]) because the plaintiff made the loan prior to the alleged misrepresentation and could not have relied on the rep[769]*769resentation. Nor is there stated a claim against the defendant individually on the alleged corporate assumption of Patterson’s debt. The facts alleged do not bring the case within the exception to the third-party beneficiary rule for money held for creditors (Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37, 42 [1871]) or indicate grounds for liability under G. L. c. 156B, §§ 61, 63.

The case was submitted on briefs. Marc S. Alpert for the plaintiff. John R. Hicinbothem for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The complaint was properly dismissed under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974). No claim is stated for deceit (see Graphic Arts Finishers, Inc. v. Boston Redevelopment Authy. 357 Mass. 40, 44 [1970]) or negligent misrepresentation (see Craig v. Everett M. Brooks Co. 351 Mass. 497, 499-501 [1967]) because the plaintiff made the loan prior to the alleged misrepresentation and could not have relied on the rep[769]*769resentation. Nor is there stated a claim against the defendant individually on the alleged corporate assumption of Patterson’s debt. The facts alleged do not bring the case within the exception to the third-party beneficiary rule for money held for creditors (Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37, 42 [1871]) or indicate grounds for liability under G. L. c. 156B, §§ 61, 63.

The case was submitted on briefs. Marc S. Alpert for the plaintiff. John R. Hicinbothem for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 N.E.2d 927, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 768, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanoff-v-balcom-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack