Oh Brother!
A summary of a recent six-month suspension order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The respondent stipulated to misconduct in two real estate transactions. In the first, the respondent met two brothers, David and Gregg, and signed a fee agreement with David. David formed a corporation to purchase a restaurant and land, naming Gregg as the sole member of the corporation. The respondent believed he represented both brothers. He communicated through an email address that bore Gregg’s name only, and believed he was communicating with Gregg. In fact, he was communicating only with David who, likely because of a prior felony conviction, pretended to be Gregg, secured financing for the restaurant using Gregg’s name, forged Gregg’s name to closing documents including a promissory note and mortgage, and then forged Gregg’s signature on a CORI Form David filled out to get a liquor license for the restaurant. The respondent had not witnessed the signing of the CORI form but, nonetheless, notarized it, attested that Gregg had appeared before him, and forwarded the form to state and local authorities in support of the liquor license endeavor. As a result of these actions, Gregg was sued by a creditor, and the lender subsequently demanded payment from Gregg based on his alleged guaranty.
The second matter again involved David, this time acting through a corporation known as the Apponaug Group, and attempting to purchase a Rhode Island restaurant. David secured funding from the same lender for the restaurant, but not for an adjacent lot, which he also wanted. The lot was owned by a trust, whose trustees were an elderly couple with a life estate in the lot. David introduced the respondent to the couple’s son, who falsely claimed to have authority to sell the lot, and who signed the P&S the respondent had prepared with a $225,000 sale price. The respondent did not confirm that the son in fact had authority to sell. The respondent drafted a deed for the lot and sent it to the son and the lender’s counsel. Shortly thereafter, David informed the respondent that the terms of the sale of the lot had changed; it now included additional properties, and the price had climbed to $350,000. David produced a receipt from the trust stating that it had received $350,000.
In fact, the elderly trustees had no knowledge of the sale and had not received $350,000. In a phone call with David, the son and a third person who identified himself as one of the trustees, the respondent told the trustee that he and his wife should sign the deed and trustee certificate. The next day, the respondent sent a materially false and misleading email to the lender’s counsel, stating among other lies that he had seen the trustees. When David produced a signed deed and trustee certificate, the respondent falsely notarized the trustees’ signatures on the deed, stating that they had personally appeared before him when they had not. The deed was recorded and, in due course, the trustees learned about it and filed a lawsuit against numerous parties, including the respondent.
(Mike Frisch)