The Appeals Court heard argument in a dispute over compensation claimed by intermediaries (an auctioneer and an alleged broker-arranger) who say they procured a buyer for a troubled real‑estate project the bank was marketing to avoid foreclosure.
Appellant counsel Steve Grant argued the bank actively sought a buyer, relied on the appellants’ efforts to bring buyers to the table, and accepted a transaction the bank itself described as “the best deal we could have got.” Grant urged that the appellants should be compensated under theories including contract, quantum meruit and joint venture; he told the court the bank’s delay in asserting the statute‑of‑frauds defense prejudiced appellants’ discovery and ability to depose key witnesses.
Rockland Trust (successor to East Boston Savings Bank) counsel Nick Nescos countered that the claims were properly dismissed below because (1) any brokerage activities required a licensed real‑estate broker under G. L. c.112 §87RR and related regulations, and the auctioneer’s alleged activities were not performed “acting as a licensed auctioneer” covered by the statutory exception; (2) the statute of frauds barred alleged oral agreements to pay brokerage fees unless in writing; and (3) there was no evidence the bank reasonably expected to pay the third‑party claimant, a necessary element of quantum meruit.
The panel questioned whether late asserted affirmative defenses could be excluded as prejudicial, whether joint‑venture allegations could evade licensing or statute‑of‑frauds obstacles, and whether the undisputed emails and documentary exchanges between the bank and the intermediaries were sufficient to create enforceable obligations. The court took the matter under advisement.