Boston Partner Stephen J. Orlando recently obtained a directed verdict at trial. The case involved a plaintiff who applied for a residential mortgage from Mr. Orlando’s client. The plaintiff alleged that Mr. Orlando’s client engaged in “bait-and-switch” tactics regarding the loan terms, violating regulations promulgated by the Attorney General’s Office. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees based upon an alleged violation of M.G.L. c. 93A.
Before trial, Mr. Orlando moved for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s claims. The court granted the motion for specific claims but allowed the plaintiff to proceed to trial on the remaining claims.
During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that Mr. Orlando’s client never made false statements about the loan terms. The plaintiff also admitted that he did not rely on inaccurate information when he agreed to the loan terms. Finally, the plaintiff admitted that he had no reason to believe Mr. Orlando’s client was trying to mislead or deceive him.
Following the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Mr. Orlando moved for a directed verdict. He argued that, based on the testimony elicited during cross-examination, the jury had no basis to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The trial judge agreed and granted judgment in favor of Mr. Orlando’s client as a matter of law.