Berish v. Bornstein, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (2006)

Citation: Berish v. Bornstein, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (2006)
Parent Document: Berish v. Bornstein, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2006-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356288/berish-v-bornstein/ ↗

Full Text

1,294 chars

Even if notice of other leaks, such as skylights and slider doors, should have placed the Board ofTrustees on notice of a possible lack of flashing around the windows, the plaintiffs’ claims are timely. The defendants argue that because Stuart Bomstein had notice *538of the leaking skylights and sliders in 1983 based on owner complaints, the statute of limitations began to run at that time, making the plaintiffs’ complaint in January of 1987 untimely. However, the general rule is that when an agent has an interest adverse to his principal, notice to the agent does not constitute notice to the principal. See GTE Products Corp. v. Broadway Electrical Supply Co., Inc., 42 Mass.App.Ct. 293, 299-300 (1997). See also Am.Jur.2d Corporations §1451 (2004). Bomstein’s knowledge therefore should not be imputed to the Board, given his adverse interest. Trustee Anthi Tsamtsouris observed leaks in her own slider doors and skylights in spring of 1984, and Kaplan was aware of slider leaks in his own unit when he joined the Board in July of 1984. Assuming that this was sufficient notice to the Board of all leaking problems, including the lack of flashing, the statute of limitations began to run in mid-1984, and the plaintiffs’ complaint on January 27, 1987 was timely. 3.Bathroom Ventilation

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text