• T&E Litigation Newsletter - 1/25/2013
  • January 28, 2013 | Author: Mark E. Swirbalus
  • Law Firm: Goulston & Storrs A Professional Corporation - Boston Office
  • In two recent decisions, the courts discussed the viability of certain claims against and on behalf of estates.

    First, in Kraft Power Corporation v. Merrill, Case No. SJC-11063, 2013 Mass. LEXIS 8 (Jan. 14, 2013), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed whether an estate can be held liable for certain claims against the decedent as a principal of a corporation under the doctrine of corporate disregard, i.e., whether such claims against the decedent survive his death and can be asserted against his estate.

    The doctrine of corporate disregard applies as a matter of equity, and the corporate veil can be pierced, in order to disregard a corporation’s existence and impose liability on individual principals for the purpose of defeating some fraud or wrong or remedying some injury.

    The decedent was the sole shareholder and officer of Power Wiring. Kraft Power sold equipment to Power Wiring, for which Power Wiring did not pay. Kraft Power obtained a default judgment against Power Wiring for breach of contract in the approximate amount of $260,000, but Power Wiring had no assets to satisfy the judgment. Prior to entry of the default judgment, the decedent died, and Kraft Power subsequently brought claims against the decedent’s estate. Kraft Power alleged that the decedent was personally responsible for Power Wiring’s contractual obligations because he had abused the corporate form by causing Power Wiring, over which he exercised pervasive control, to become insolvent by transferring its assets to another company under his control, and that both companies were operated by the decedent as shams for his personal benefit. Kraft Power asserted claims against the decedent’s estate for breach of contract, fraudulent transfers in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, G.L. c. 109A, violations of Section 11 of Chapter 93A, unjust enrichment and fraud.

    The trial court dismissed the claims. The SJC reversed in large part and affirmed in small part.

    The Court explained that claims which survive a defendant’s death pursuant to the survival statute, G.L. c. 228, § 1, include certain enumerated tort claims and common law claims, and that the common law claims that survive include claims based on contract.

    With this explanation, the Court held that the breach of contract claim against the decedent’s estate survives, and similarly that the fraudulent transfer claim survives because it is premised on a contractual obligation owed by the decedent’s company. Therefore, neither of these claims should have been dismissed.

    With respect to the Chapter 93A claim, which presented a question of first impression, the Court held that the claim itself survives because it is contract-based (some Chapter 93A claims can be tort-based, and some can be mixed in nature), and thus should not have been dismissed, but that the multiple damages available under Chapter 93A, which are intended to be punitive, do not survive. “Like punitive damages in tort actions, multiple damages under G.L. c. 93A can no longer achieve the goals of punishing a defendant or deterring him from future misconduct when the wrongdoer has died[.]”

    The Court also reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, which is based on the allegation against the executrix of the estate that she is holding assets that properly belong to Kraft Power, and so the doctrine of corporate disregard and the survival statute do not even apply.

    The Court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claim, however, which was based on the allegation that the decedent had fraudulently induced Kraft Power to enter into the contract. This claim was properly dismissed because a claim of fraudulent inducement does not survive under the survival statute or at common law.

    Second, in Estate of Steven Gavin v. Tewksbury State Hospital, Case No. 12-P-62, 2013 Mass. App. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 18, 2013), the Appeals Court addressed the dismissal of a claim for wrongful death under the Massachusetts Tort Claim Act, G.L. c. 258, § 4, because the claim had not been presented or filed by the duly appointed executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate.

    The decedent died on August 11, 2008, allegedly because of Tewksbury State Hospital’s negligence. The Massachusetts Tort Claim Act (the “Act”) provides that a claim against a governmental entity must be “presented” within two years. Although the executors named in the decedent’s will (his parents) sent a “presentment” letter to the Hospital and to the Attorney General within the two-year window, on July 21, 2010, they had not been appointed as executors at that time. Then, on March 24, 2011, after the six-month waiting period required under the Act had expired, the named executors filed the wrongful death action on behalf of the estate against the Hospital and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. After being appointed as temporary executors, they then moved to amend the complaint.

    The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the presentment and the suit were deficient in that they were brought by someone other than a duly appointed executor or administrator of the estate. The trial court granted the motion, and the Appeals Court affirmed. The Court held that because the “claimants” had not been duly appointed at the time of presentment, a condition precedent to suit under the Act was not met, and that their subsequent appointment did not cure this defect. The Court reasoned that the presentment requirement reflects a legislative choice to permit the public employer to investigate any claim in full and to negotiate, arbitrate, compromise or settle any such claim. Accordingly, the claimant must have the power to negotiate, arbitrate, compromise or settle the claim. Because they had not been duly appointed, the named executors (even in their later capacities as the appointed temporary executors) did not have this power.

    Justice Agnes dissented, writing that the meaning the majority assigned to the term “claimant” is too technical and contrary to legislative intent.