RE: Demand for Relief Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A on Behalf of
pretty pretty princess
Dear Dickweed:
This firm has been retained by pretty pretty princess (“princess”) with regard to the misrepresentations made by you in connection with the sale of the treehouse (the “Property”). This letter is a formal demand, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A, that you immediately remit to princess $10,762.50 to cover her assessed share of the substantial envelope repair project at the treehouse.
As you know, princess purchased the Property from you on June 14, 2005. The original language contained in the purchase and sale agreement read: “and the seller has no notice or actual knowledge of any pending improvements, repairs or replacements or plans therefore which would be likely to result in a supplemental assessment or significant increase in the monthly common expense for the unit.” Prior to signing the purchase and sale agreement, you informed princess that the windows for all units would be replaced and that the cost would be paid by all unit owners. In light of this disclosure, your lawyer suggested removing that clause from the purchase and sale agreement. Your attorney also suggested the addition of paragraph 14 of the rider, which reads: “buyer agrees that buyer shall be responsible for any assessment if said assessment is promulgated by the Condominium after the date of closing.” The plain implication for these changes to the purchase and sale agreement was that the replacement of the windows was the only issue of which you were aware.
Nevertheless, at the time you and princess signed the purchase and sale agreement, you were also aware that a substantial building envelope repair project was also scheduled to occur before or concurrently with the window replacement. In fact, nearly seven months prior to closing on the sale of the Property with princess, you received a letter (attached hereto) from bigcondohomies to all owners dated November 29, 2004, which specifically informed owners that a “significant undertaking” to repair the building envelope would occur prior to or concurrently with the window replacement. During the course of your negotiations with princess, you withheld this information from princess despite your awareness of its imminence, large scope, substantial cost and despite your implicit representation that nothing like that would occur.
You fraudulently obtained princess's consent to pay for special assessments by withholding information concerning the significant envelope repair project, of which you were well aware. The undisclosed envelope repair project requires a special assessment of $10,762.50 above and beyond the window replacement, with payments to begin February 1, 2006. Had this additional project been disclosed to princess during the negotiation process she would not have consented to the suggested changes to the purchase and sale agreement, the suggested addition to the rider, nor would she have purchased the unit without an agreement to cover this additional cost.
In light of the foregoing, I now formally demand that you remit to princess $10,762.50 to cover her assessed share of the substantial envelope repair project at the treehouse. If this demand is not met, then princess intends to take legal action. Further, such action not only will involve allegations of misrepresentation, but also will include a claim for deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A. Indeed, the Chapter 93A claim has a very high likelihood of success under the relevant case law. See, e.g., Cambridge Plating co., Inc. v. NAPCO, Inc., 876 F.Supp. 326, 336 (D.Mass.1995) (fraud and negligent misrepresentation constitute violations of Chapter 93A). See also 940 C.M.R. 3.16 (Attorney General’s regulations), stating that:
[A]n act or practice is a violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, §2 if ... [a]ny person or other legal entity subject to this act fails to disclose to a buyer or prospective buyer any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer or prospective buyer not to enter into the transaction ....
Further, because the unfair acts and practices in this case plainly were undertaken knowingly and willfully, you will be liable to princess in an amount equal to at least twice her damages related to the envelope repair project and possibly three times that amount, as well as being liable for princess'scosts and attorneys’ fees. See M.G.L. c. 93A, §9. Thus, do not make the mistake of thinking that princess will view this case as one in which she should substantially discount her expected recovery to offset the anticipated legal fees.
Notwithstanding princess's plain ability to prevail in a lawsuit and obtain a judgment against you that could exceed $100,000 after all of the damages and fees are calculated, my client still is willing to settle this matter without resorting to litigation if she immediately is paid the $10,762.50 to cover her assessed share of the envelope repair project. Moreover, such a settlement would be in your best interest because it will (i) eliminate the likelihood of a much larger judgment being entered against you by a Court of law; and (ii) avoid the need for you to spend money on an attorney or attorneys of your own. Accordingly, I hope you will accede to this demand and agree to remit to princess $10,762.50 to cover her assessed share of the envelope repair project.
No matter what your response to this letter, please direct it to me and do not attempt to contact princess directly. Finally, please be advised that if this matter is not settled within 30 days (the time allotted for a response under Chapter 93A), I will assume that it cannot be resolved without resort to litigation.
Sincerely,
niceybigbadlawyer
cc: princess