From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romanoff v. Balcom

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 19, 1976
4 Mass. App. Ct. 768 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)

Opinion

January 19, 1976.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Marc S. Alpert for the plaintiff.

John R. Hicinbothem for the defendant.


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 representation. 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.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Romanoff v. Balcom

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Jan 19, 1976
4 Mass. App. Ct. 768 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
Case details for

Romanoff v. Balcom

Case Details

Full title:SYLVIA ROMANOFF vs. RAYMOND D. BALCOM

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 19, 1976

Citations

4 Mass. App. Ct. 768 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
339 N.E.2d 927

Citing Cases

Massachusetts School of Law v. American Bar

The general rule is that, without this necessary element, there can be no recovery for negligent…

KSA Enters., Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

KSA has not plausibly explained the connection between BB&T's statements and its decision to refinance…