Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Albano v. Jordan Marsh Co.
Citations: 5 Mass. App. Ct. 277; 362 N.E.2d 219; 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 634
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; April 29, 1977; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
The plaintiff appeals the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on estoppel by judgment, following extensive litigation regarding the plaintiff's attempts to develop a shopping center in Springfield. The sole remaining count in this tort action alleges that the defendant wrongfully induced other tenants to breach their leases with the plaintiff. The case, begun in 1968, predates earlier litigation in Albano I, which involved a declaratory judgment regarding lease rights and was affirmed in 1974. After a decree in Albano I, the defendant amended its answer to assert res judicata, which led to the current action being nontriable pending appeal resolution. In March 1976, the defendant filed for summary judgment on res judicata grounds, which the judge granted, stating that the facts essential to the tort claim were adversely found in Albano I. The plaintiff contends that res judicata does not apply because the current action involves a distinct cause of action—unlawful interference with contractual relations—unrelated to the lease rights determined in Albano I. However, the court rejected this argument, clarifying that the critical consideration is whether the findings in Albano I resulted from full litigation rather than their essentiality to the prior judgment. The court noted that differing legal principles do not negate the conclusive effect of the previous judgment, emphasizing that the issues in the current action were indeed raised and deliberated in Albano I. The court concluded that the plaintiff had previously alleged that the defendant’s actions caused other tenants to withdraw from the shopping center project, affirming the applicability of res judicata. The defendant claimed that Albano's actions, specifically allowing the cancellation of essential leases, disabled him from performing under the lease, rendering his obligations impossible. This allegation was central to the issues raised in the prior case, Albano I. The court found in Albano I that Jordan did not induce tenants to leave, a finding that is now conclusive and binds the parties under res judicata and collateral estoppel. The plaintiff's affidavit opposing the summary judgment did not present any new facts that were not previously litigated. The court noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to address any concerns about the scope of issues during Albano I, especially since the current action was pending at that time. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to allow the defendant to amend its answer to include a res judicata defense and to grant summary judgment based on that defense. Additionally, it was noted that any tort claims against Jordan based on allegations of wrongful actions or interference failed because prior findings established that Jordan acted in good faith and did not cause the other tenants to abandon their leases. The record from Albano I, including pleadings and findings, was submitted as evidence in the current action, with no indication that the tenants involved had changed. Overall, the court concluded there was no basis for maintaining the tort action on the asserted claims.