Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Go-Best Assets Ltd. v. Citizens Bank
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided May 12, 2011No. 08-P-1235Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBerry, J.
I dissent from all parts of the majority opinion which hold that the complaint stated any legally cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted against Citizens Bank of Massachusetts (Citizens Bank).1
1. This was not an attorney-client or fiduciary account under Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.15. The relationship between Goldings and Go-Best Assets Limited (Go-Best) was not one of attorney-client. This was not an individual or pooled IOLTA attorney-client account under Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.15, 426 Mass. 1363 (1998). Morris M. Goldings was not holding funds for Go-Best, either as a lawyer, or as a fiduciary…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Spinner v. NuttMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Kyte v. Philip Morris Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Arcidi v. National Ass'n of Government Employees, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Maruho Co. v. Miles, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.