[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6211498,"mediaKeyId","3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73","parentId",3695305,"title","Appeals Court hears oral-contract dispute over alleged $2 million sale of Salisbury properties and pizza business","audioSeconds",2385,"startMs",5547000,"endMs",7932000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73&start=5547&end=7932","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73/thumbnail_5547000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6211498/Massachusetts/Appeals-Court-hears-oral-contract-dispute-over-alleged-2-million-sale-of-Salisbury-properties-and-pizza-business","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211498-df6267dd671f7f9049ebfe571a213d45/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588078&Signature=Mm30HJXnt~WVxdDZI15mLnOy8LnrQMaLjokTjgeo2Wxmk4N1K96xOMw496JHsjL3CIOEEm-SqUykh-osy1F6gWLtV0sXqS2zqpzPuEES83OkeHaq6FqBSVlNzupvyryrIXV4mAtQqD4T~FQRx5E9PhgvTj9nbt3oVBrcrCXTg9Ddt2E8nMm5qwR-oSA7pfh9rW~NwTGMMaCsyabvwX3-1oNsiVYhwV2UMPT8oOOLKY5njwD4WfA9sodzXrtDouiwHxGW1b3Wm18v2J75htf1hBPYUb~Vp4cinv9ZMQRp5dP9lI~BY-dNLEPu5QgFnXBKo5s1ZdbeNrra1LecPU5sHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-06T13:29:08Z","article","The Massachusetts Appeals Court on June 6 heard argument in Capalupo v. Daley (docket 24P0751), a dispute over whether the decedent made an enforceable oral contract in September 2018 to sell a package of business interests and real-estate assets for $2,000,000.

Plaintiff counsel Bill Sheehan told the panel the alleged oral deal covered four items: all stock in Christie's Beach Pizza Inc.; all membership interest in 11 Broadway Holdings LLC; the real estate at 5 Broadway in Salisbury; and real estate at 24'6 North End Boulevard in Salisbury. Sheehan argued the parties partially performed the agreement (keys and alarm codes were delivered and signage and other acts followed) and that later appraisals placed the combined value of the properties at just under $2.5 million, supporting the plausibility of the $2 million package price.

Defense counsel Michael Feynman, representing the personal representative of the Paredna estate, told the panel the statute of frauds bars enforcement because two of the four components were transfers of real estate and the written rule should control. He further argued the alleged agreement was an indivisible package and that it would be improper for the court to sever the real-estate components from the remainder of the deal and enforce only the nonreal-estate pieces for the same price.

Sheehan emphasized corroborating evidence he says supported a jury finding of a contract: keys and alarm codes introduced at trial; testimony that the decedent had previously tried to engage the plaintiff; and the postmortem appraisals of the properties. Feynman replied that the jury reasonably could find no meeting of the minds because the parties knew any sale of real estate typically requires a signed writing, and the evidentiary record included testimony and admissions the jury could accept that no binding agreement was reached.

The parties also disputed evidentiary rulings at trial, including whether post-death appraisals were admissible to help a jury infer the objective reasonableness of the price and whether portions of a marked-up will and related attorney-client communications were properly admitted or were privileged. Feynman argued the trial court erred in denying summary judgment and that admission and waiver issues undermined the plaintiff's case.

Ending: After extended argument and questioning, the panel took the matter under advisement. No bench decision was announced at the close of argument.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, June 6, 2025, Englander, Toone, Wood, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","On June 6 the Appeals Court considered whether a jury could reasonably have found an oral $2 million agreement to buy certain businesses and real estate, and whether the statute of frauds or evidentiary rulings required judgment for the estate.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6211503,"Appeals Court hears dispute over valuation of unvested Fidelity awards in divorce case",3078,2458000,5536000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73&start=2458&end=5536","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73/thumbnail_2458000.jpg","/articles/6211503/Massachusetts/Appeals-Court-hears-dispute-over-valuation-of-unvested-Fidelity-awards-in-divorce-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211503-c93bfc61d6df59b6bbd28ab66073d3a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588078&Signature=PWUFlOLtc2hkxnWb3v9ACuzKJFYY-CjyUjU0efCdXur9GyUM0E41MJN~Hj~PhUeT~mEhEueWJQU1Pds07zXU2itY2LrHzj7uSWfxTYIqDEjRYxnm4KI9-Lo4sWq5U5PJk7MG97d6o1aaXimUR22eVpK-9zi7fOwPWl0myRK75gbjRz0Vmf6zzHcTOoBZXXY8HKlUotHSjzKHSTqZXvQE8TKCSY7iHKuHlmWh7qmur~hLrbhQHmzJbwru~8-Bt8d2GXResDT2W1Owqk2ETtwyn-Y0CM9v1vaERCayKrBsKioEPutjaByW7C9nqyePjpZrbEEYBZbVXv1Q8oqxJkFDMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-justice panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court on June 6 heard argument in an appeal challenging how a probate judge divided Fidelity-related compensation in marriage dissolution proceedings (docket reported as 24P0792). Appellant counsel Nancy Baskin argued the trial judge erred by allocating entirely unvested NVC awards equally rather than applying the Picante time-rule or an if-and-when method; respondent counsel Steven McKenzie urged deference to the judge's detailed findings and broad discretion.

Why it matters: The case addresses how courts should treat employer-retention awards and similar equity-style compensation (here called NVCs) that vest over multiple years: whether such instruments are marital property subject to division now and if so whether the award should be valued at trial (present value) or divided using an if-and-when/coverture formula that credits future vesting to post-divorce efforts.

Baskin told the court there are two sets of instruments at issue: large NVC tranches that had not vested at trial and a smaller class of IEUs (investor entity units) that vested immediately and had been distributed. \"These two types of shares are called NVCs. They have a 7 year vesting period, and they were entirely unvested still at the time of trial,\" she said. Baskin emphasized testimony from Fidelity management that distributions spun off from NVCs reduce the NVCs' net asset value (NAV) dollar for dollar and argued the trial judge's allocation failed to apply Picante and related precedent.

McKenzie, representing the respondent, urged deference to a lengthy 47-page trial judge's decision, saying the judge considered the record and exercised discretion in dividing assets and awarding alimony. He told the panel the NVCs lack a publicly traded market price and that Fidelity redeems at NAV; he argued the judge could reasonably treat NAV and other evidence as she did.

The panel questioned whether the record supported an \"if-and-when\" formula and whether the trial judge had adequate evidence to set a present value. Justices probed the factual testimony: Baskin pointed to testimony that distributions of IEUs paid in 2021 and 2022 totaled about $200,000 and that those distributions reduce NAV; McKenzie replied the instruments are complex, include clawback and redemption rules, and that the judge's fidelity to the record merits appellate deference.

The court also heard argument about alimony: whether the trial court improperly relied on a trial-era financial statement (filed late in proceedings) rather than the earlier post-separation statement as the baseline for determining the wife's needs. Baskin argued the late financial statements inflated claimed expenses and that the wife had not been given a fair opportunity to justify the increased spending. McKenzie urged deference and said the judge had the full record.

Ending: The Court finished argument after extended questioning and signaled it would take the parties' briefs and the cited authorities under advisement. No ruling was issued from the bench.","The Appeals Court on June 6 questioned whether a probate judge abused discretion by dividing unvested Fidelity NVC awards equally instead of applying the coverture/time-rule (Picante); counsel debated NAV, distributions (IEUs), and whether an if-and-when approach or present-value approach should control.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6211508,"Appeals Court presses prosecutors, defense over jury instructions in Commonwealth v. Nunez gun case",2207,190000,2397000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73&start=190&end=2397","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3695305-f4394d8eef0ce1e1ee3fcc46bd767c73/thumbnail_190000.jpg","/articles/6211508/Massachusetts/Appeals-Court-presses-prosecutors-defense-over-jury-instructions-in-Commonwealth-v-Nunez-gun-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211508-9b1e6b1613ca6ab6dba035d4b5a52ddf/orig.mp4?Expires=1773588078&Signature=kMulyPPMstT3wHK2pnj0c2O~Rbwyr~MH5YLsQmTzU03-4wkHxUn6UxJ1y~R9QkB-n9gWKjQ6udMrMhMQZB7~ijRpE8N7jHbc1eFk-j2zq6JBeuhh~cgyO5olTiuJGLOEyUSEynSJ3M9eY-lFINNEo1ryxpnG0lpDH8usu2GpIayEkPEeK7sxvO7xLNgfp3LU02bmetWkz77zpfj5CNPInTnM0tqh9n554uwL9GceF4hyzZbYX-vPFC876JJ-V8-5y~gkElodEgrYbZzBhTXWb6frwvziaKDpQ11YL1L367yR5T625xdQrNb4GU9KvfuZ0hJjs1XOAdwuxEqzqEf7TA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-justice panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments June 6 in Commonwealth v. Francisco Nunez (24P1211) over whether a trial court's instructions on joint venture liability were legally defective and, if so, whether the conviction can nonetheless stand on an alternative theory of constructive possession.

The issue arose after defense counsel Edward Crane told the court the trial had been tried after the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Guadado and that, under that case, \"to prove a possessory firearm offense under a joint venture theory of liability, the Commonwealth must now establish the principal's lack of licensure and that the defendant knew the principal was not licensed.\" Crane said the Commonwealth had effectively conceded the joint-venture instruction was erroneous and pressed the panel to reverse because the jury might have relied on that flawed instruction.

Why it matters: The case tests how courts should treat unpreserved instructional error in dual-theory trials (aided/abetted joint venture and principal constructive possession) and whether the evidence of constructive possession here was \"so overwhelming\" as to render the instructional error harmless.

Counsel and the panel focused on whether the evidence permitted an \"ineluctable\" inference that the defendant had constructive possession. Justice John Englander and his colleagues repeatedly pressed counsel on the factual record: the courtroom heard that video evidence showed another man holding the firearm and then entering an apartment and that the defendant was driving the vehicle that transported the shooter. Justice Englander said the court has \"an independent obligation'to make that determination on our own as to whether there's sufficient evidence on constructive possession.\"

The defense argued the record lacks evidence that the principal'whose identity was never established at trial'was unlicensed or that the defendant knew of any lack of licensure. Crane told the panel there was \"no evidence whatsoever with regard to the principal,\" and that the jury instruction on joint venture therefore could not support a conviction. He added that his client had at one point conceded constructive possession and then sought to withdraw that concession at oral argument, saying, \"can I take back the concession?\"

Assistant Attorney General Catherine Jansen, arguing for the Commonwealth, countered that there was sufficient evidence to support principal liability through constructive possession and that the jury had been properly instructed on constructive possession. Jansen told the court she was \"arguing essentially there's no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the instructional error\" because the evidence supported principal liability and because the Commonwealth had a stipulation on license evidence, she said.

The panel and counsel debated appellate precedent including Commonwealth v. Desiderio, Commonwealth v. Romero, Commonwealth v. Jackson and cases the parties cited dealing with when an unpreserved instructional error requires reversal. The justices asked whether Zanetti (as cited in briefs) and related authority mean joint-venture and principal liability should be treated as a single sufficiency inquiry on appeal or whether an instructional error in one pleaded theory can require reversal regardless of sufficiency on another theory.

The justices also questioned factual inferences the jury could permissibly draw from the video and the 911 call. Crane asked the court to reverse and enter a judgment of acquittal if the panel finds the evidence insufficient; the Commonwealth urged affirmance, arguing the trial record and instructions permitted the jury to convict on principal constructive-possession grounds.

The panel indicated it would review the arguments, cited the complexity of the legal questions, and gave counsel leave to submit any further authorities the court requests. No decision was announced from the bench.

Ending: The court concluded oral argument after extended questioning of both sides. The justices signaled they would take the briefs and the contested authorities under advisement before issuing a written decision.","A three-justice panel at the Massachusetts Appeals Court on June 6 heard argument in Commonwealth v. Nunez about whether a trial instruction on joint venture liability was legally defective after the Supreme Judicial Court's post-Guadado decisions and whether sufficient evidence of constructive possession can sustain the conviction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals Court hears oral-contract dispute over alleged $2 million sale of Salisbury properties and pizza business

Appeals Court hears dispute over valuation of unvested Fidelity awards in divorce case

Appeals Court presses prosecutors, defense over jury instructions in Commonwealth v. Nunez gun case