Shafir v. Steele

727 N.E.2d 1140 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D publishes a newspaper called The Advocate. In 1993, D and his business entities were in default on loans from Shawmut Bank (Shawmut), secured by a mortgage on the property at issue in this case. A loan restructuring agreement was worked out between Shawmut and D. Shawmut would foreclose on the property and D's children, through a trust, would bid at least $175,000 at the foreclosure sale. If a third party outbid the trust, the restructuring agreement would be null and void. Shawmut had valued the property at $275,000. The foreclosure sale was held on July 6, 1993. P's bid of $ 240,000 was $5,000 higher than the highest bid made by d's children. P paid a $10,000 deposit and signed a purchase and sale agreement with Shawmut. That evening D sought revenge. D went to P's movie theater and stood 'a little too close' to P and, conveying 'a sense of menace,' told her that he was 'not very well.' On July 8, 1993, D's newspaper published an editorial that essentially accused P of bidding at the sale as retribution for The Advocate's refusing to drop its 'Screen Scene' column which had once been critical of P's movie theater. It concluded with a statement implying that P intended to muzzle the newspaper. D requested a face-to-face meeting. The meeting took place on July 11, 1993. D was 'quite distraught' and did not understand and kept insisting that the building 'was his.' Near the end of the meeting, P offered to have D buy out her position for $15,000, which D rejected. The next day D delivered an unsigned legal complaint prepared by D's attorney for filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court. The complaint charged P with fraud, extortion, and malicious interference with an advantageous contract (between D and Shawmut). On July 26, 1993, P's attorney sent a letter to Shawmut declaring her intention not to close the sale and requesting the return of her $10,000. Shawmut refused to return the deposit and maintained its right to seek recovery of additional expenses. P sued D for defamation and intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court denied D's motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found D liable to P. D appealed