Allure Design Landscape Architects Construction Services, Inc. v. Gina Volandre.
23-P-1133
Mass. App. Ct.Dec 9, 2024Background
- Allure Design Landscape Architects filed eight breach of contract claims against Gina Volandre, alleging she owed $629,580 for landscaping and masonry work performed at her home.
- The president of Allure, Paul Kauranen, was in a romantic relationship with Volandre during the period of the alleged contracts and had lived in her home without paying rent.
- Kauranen performed the work at Volandre’s home and later faced criminal charges and civil actions related to fraudulent activities with unrelated parties. In a separate case (Pham action), it was determined that Kauranen had gifted the work to Volandre.
- In the current action, the trial court granted summary judgment for Volandre based on collateral estoppel, relying on the earlier Pham case.
- On appeal, the court found that collateral estoppel did not apply because Allure did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the Pham case.
- However, it affirmed summary judgment for Volandre, finding that the evidence (even viewed in the light most favorable to Allure) showed there was no contractually enforceable obligation: Kauranen had gifted the work or released Volandre from any contractual obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of collateral estoppel | Pham action should not bar this suit | Pham decision precludes Allure’s claims | Not barred; no full and fair opportunity for Allure |
| Existence of contract/enforceability | Volandre agreed to pay for services | No contract; work was a gift by Kauranen | No genuine dispute of material fact; no enforceable contract |
| Effect of Allure and Kauranen's roles | Kauranen's actions don't bind Allure | Kauranen represented Allure, and decisions bind it | Plaintiff’s argument was conclusory and waived |
| Due process in prior and current actions | Due process denied in earlier/proceedings | No denial of due process | No denial; irrelevant to this breach of contract action |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdulky v. Lubin & Meyer, P.C., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 441 (outlines elements for collateral estoppel in Massachusetts)
- Treglia v. MacDonald, 430 Mass. 237 (judgments by default generally lack preclusive effect)
- TLT Constr. Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe & Assocs., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (party seeking summary judgment based on preclusion bears burden to establish preclusion applies)
- Benvenuto v. 204 Hanover, LLC, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 140 (sham affidavits cannot create genuine factual disputes at summary judgment)
- Adams v. Schneider Elec. USA, 492 Mass. 271 (explains standard for granting summary judgment)