Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Lindquist v. Stella, 111 N.E.3d 304 (2018)

Citation
Lindquist v. Stella, 111 N.E.3d 304 (2018)
Parent Document
Lindquist v. Stella, 111 N.E.3d 304 (2018)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2018-09-10

Full Text

796 chars
In reaching these conclusions, the judge engaged in no independent analysis of the agency issue.8 Instead, she adopted Stella's proposed finding that "Shepherd [sic ] ('Maintenance Manager') is the son of [Lindquist] and maintenance manager of the subject premises, and at all times relevant was operating as an agent of [Lindquist]." This finding is clearly erroneous. There was no evidence that would reasonably support characterizing Shepard as the "maintenance manager." To the contrary, the evidence was that over five years Shepard did repair work at the property on less than a handful of occasions. Indeed, in response to a question whether Shepard "ever made repairs," Stella himself testified that Shepard replaced some broken windows but, otherwise, Stella "really [hadn't] seen much."