WRITING, RESEARCH, & TRIAL ADVOCACY
Closed Memo Fact Pattern
Peter Cabot (“Peter”) is a Homeowner in Boxford, Massachusetts. His mother is ailing, and it is clear that, soon, she won’t be able to live alone. After researching the cost of elderly care facilities, he and his wife have decided it would be much more cost effective to build what is commonly known as an “in-law” apartment onto his home.
Peter has checked with the town clerk’s office (knowing full well that local ordinances can prevent a homeowner from adding such an addition) and was told that this is allowable under local ordinance under the following conditions:
- A family member must be living on the property where the suite will be built; and
- There must be an outside entrance into the dwelling separate from the main house; and
- The addition must have separate water and sewer connections; and
- There must be access to off-street parking, such as a garage or driveway.
In addition, there is a set-back ordinance that sets a minimum lot frontage of 100 feet measured at the street line or bordering property.
Peter’s 3,500 square foot home sits nicely in the center of his lot. However, Peter’s home is only 100 feet from all neighboring property lines as well as the street. The neighbor that lives directly behind Peter, Bob Lanedry (“Bob”) has a picturesque back yard with acres of undeveloped green land. Peter knows that, to make this addition a reality for his mother, he will need to purchase a 400 square foot strip of land from his neighbor, Bob.
Peter called Bob (who has lived behind Peter for 2 decades and they have always had an amicable relationship), to discuss his plight and to offer to purchase the 400 square foot strip of land so that he can build and be safely within the zoning requirements. Bob’s sale of that strip would not impact zoning on his side as he would still have 2 acres of green land between Peter’s property line and Bob’s home.
Bob was very sympathetic to Peter’s plight. Bob has met Peter’s mother many times and told Peter he would hate to see her go to a nursing home and thought it was a wonderful idea that Peter wanted his mother to live with him and his wife. Bob said he would be willing to sell a 400 square foot strip of property to Peter so that he could obtain the required building permits. The two men agreed that they could come up with a fair market price by getting the per acre going rate from Zillow.com and calculating what four hundred square feet should sell for.
Peter was so excited after speaking with Bob that he did the calculation to figure out what the land would cost, and he hired a General Contractor to begin planning the project. He took a home equity line at the bank to cover the purchase price of the land and to cover all construction costs. Over the last two months Peter has paid an Architect $5,000.00 to create a schematic design of the dwelling. He has hired a general contractor who quoted a price of $60,000 to build the suite (of which he has put a $20,000 deposit down). Peter then reached back out to Bob so that the two could execute the sale of the 400 square feet he would need to get the permit to build.
Bob has now told Peter that, though he is sorry, he is not going to be able to sell Peter the strip of land they discussed.
Peter wants to sue Bob and force the sale of the land.
ASSIGNMENT
You are a junior associate in a law firm that plans to file a lawsuit against Bob. The senior partner plans to send Bob a letter, stating his plans to file a suit for breach of contract under a theory of promissory estoppel. The firm is already aware that Bob plans to defend himself vigorously against a claim for breach stating that no agreement was reached and, even if it was, the statute of frauds would prevent Peter from prevailing because any agreement for the sale of land must be in writing.
Draft an interoffice memo, using ONLY the authority listed below. You are to draft the memo to the senior partner (your class Professor) predicting whether Peter will likely prevail. You should predict the likelihood of recovering damages as well.
Barrie-Chivan v. Lepler, 87 Mass.App.Ct. 683 (2015).
Loranger Construction Co. v. E.F. Hauserman Co., 6 Mass.App.Ct. 152 (1978).
Cannon v. Cannon, 69 Mass.App.Ct. 414 (2007)
Sullivan v. Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court, 448 Mass. 15 (2006).
Clickner v. City of Lowell, 422 Mass. 539 (1996).
Libman v. Zuckerman, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 341 (1992).
Nardone v. LVI Services, 94 Mass.App.Ct. 326 (2018).
Harrington v. Fall River Housing Authority, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 301 (1989).