Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears Bruno v. Alliance on jurisdictional timing, 93A damages and post-judgment interest
Summary
Counsel for Alliance and for Michael Bruno argued competing theories: Alliance urged the panel to measure appellate timing from a later 'final' judgment, while Bruno's side defended remand results awarding additional damages under G.L. c. 93A and sought post-judgment interest treatment; the court took the case under advisement.
At oral argument in Michael Bruno v. Alliance Rental Group LLC, Alliance counsel David Travers urged the panel to adopt a rules-based approach to finality and appellate timing, telling the court that "the final judgment occurred on 02/13/2025" when a further judgment addressed attorney's fees and remaining disputes. Travers argued that intermediate entries did not constitute separate final judgments and cited rule text (Rule 54(a), appellate rules on tolling by post-judgment motions) and analogous authority (Alberti v. Alberti, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 235) to support his view that separate, partial judgments cannot be used to start multiple appeal clocks.
The panel shifted argument to damages under G.L. c. 93A and the mechanics-lien framework. Travers told the court the use of Alliance's equipment made lots marketable and that Bruno's net result did not reflect an uncompensated loss; the argument centered on whether Bruno suffered a cognizable money loss when liens, lot values and offsets (figures discussed in argument included $585,000, $180,000, and $900,000 for two lots) complicated the accounting of harm. Travers characterized part of the dispute as a collateral-source-style question: "Why should Alliance benefit from Ivester not trying to collect that from Bruno?" and argued the 93A award should not include amounts that did not cause Bruno to pay more than the value received.
Counsel for Bruno, Chris Haberstadt, responded that the appeal period was not timely perfected and that the trial court on remand followed this court's instructions when awarding additional damages on the 93A claim. Haberstadt summarized the trial-court findings that liens were "grossly inflated" and said the trial court accounted for harms including years of litigation, bonding costs (referenced in argument as approximately $250,000 posted to municipal authorities), and other outlays occasioned by defending inflated liens.
The panel also examined when prejudgment and post-judgment interest should run; Travers provided a ballpark figure for the delta in interest of about "$110,600" between calculating interest from the original judgment versus the amended judgment and cited cases addressing interest when a later judgment corrects an earlier one. Both sides described the issues as well briefed; the court concluded questioning and took the case under advisement.
