Howard S. Goldman

Top rated real estate attorney in Needham, Massachusetts

Goldman & Pease
Howard S. Goldman
Goldman & Pease

Practice Areas: Real estate, Business & corporate, Business litigation

Licensed in Massachusetts since: 1983

Education: Boston University School of Law

Selected to Super Lawyers: 2020 - 2022
Free Consultation

Goldman & Pease

160 Gould Street
Suite 320
Needham, MA 02494 Visit website

Details

Howard S. Goldman is the founder and managing partner of Goldman & Pease. Howard has developed expertise and gained recognition in the areas of real estate law, business law for closely held companies, litigation, conveyancing, condominium law, civil litigation, probate, and financing.  He has served as lead counsel in hundreds of cases, at both the trial court and appellate levels in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, pursuing claims against and defending entrepreneurs, owners, closely held businesses, real estate developers, contractors, construction managers, condominium associations, architects, attorneys, engineers, and other professionals.  Howard actively advises and develops policies and procedures for best practices and preventive strategies to reduce and minimize the risks and damage claims for and with his clients. He is admitted to practice law in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island and is the recipient of the peer to peer designation as a “Massachusetts Super Lawyer”.

In service to the legal and business communities, Mr. Goldman regularly provides lectures for members of the Institute of Real Estate Managers (IREM) and the Community Association Institute (CAI), nonprofit, national real estate trade organizations.  He is also an active member of the Real Estate and Norfolk County Bar Associations.

Recognizing the need to keep business, real estate, and condominium board clients informed regarding relevant and changing laws legal topics, Howard works with his firm’s associates to create the Client Update newsletter. Recent articles have covered COVID related eviction and foreclosure moratoriums, amending condominium documents, mechanic’s liens, resolving and preventing title defects, marijuana laws, Airbnb laws and other areas in which changing laws require clarification and best practice guidance for clients.

Community volunteerism is important to Howard. In his hometown of Needham, MA, he is a long-serving member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He is past president of the Temple Beth Shalom Brotherhood, and former board member of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, the Needham Education Foundation, and the Jewish Big Brother & Big Sister Association of Massachusetts.

Howard received his B.A. with honors from Cornell University in 1979, and his J.D. from Boston University School of Law in 1983. Mr. Goldman is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court, Districts of Massachusetts and Rhode Islandthe Federal District Bankruptcy Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In his free time, Mr. Goldman enjoys biking–in particular, training for the annual Pan Mass Challenge fundraising ride which raises money for cancer research at Dana Farber. A passionate gardener, Howard produces an abundant crop of vegetables and fruits each summer; a large portion of which he donates to the Needham Community Council’s food pantry.  Mr. Goldman and his wife Amy love walks in the woods with their two dogs and cherish time spent with their friends and their three grown sons.

Practice areas

Real estate: business, Business/corporate, Business litigation
  • 30% Real estate: business
  • 40% Business/corporate
  • 30% Business litigation

First Admitted: 1983, Massachusetts

Professional Webpage: https://www.goldmanpease.com/attorneys/attorney-goldman

Verdicts/Settlements:
  • News Release: Condo Association Prevails in Effort to Stop Long-Delayed DevelopmentNEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S., January 20, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ — A Norton, MA condominium owners association has successfully halted additional development in their community, thanks to a summary judgment handed down by Bristol Superior Court at the end of December. The case, G. Lopes Construction, Inc. v. Trustees of the Red Mill Village Condominium Trust, was brought about when G. Lopes Construction, which was the assignee of the original developer of the Red Mill Village Condominiums, filed suit in an attempt to extend the deadline of its phased rights to build an additional unit 14 years after the community had been established. The condo owner’s association, represented by Goldman & Pease, LLC. of Needham, MA, fought to retain control of the common area lot targeted for development. “G. Lopes did not submit a building or site plan to the Trustees for approval, nor did the company obtain any permits to develop the subject lot prior to the deadline set forth in the Master Deed,” said Howard Goldman, Esq., of Goldman & Pease. “They never provided the Trustees with any materials to indicate they had experience in building residential condominiums. In fact, during discovery, G. Lopes even admitted that it never had any intention to develop the lot, as they had never built a unit like Red Mill Village, so it was not something that they wanted to do.” In issuing the summary judgment, Superior Court Justice Jackie Cowin stated that the condominium owners, “…had a right to rely on the phasing provisions of the Master Deed to establish when and how their ownership interests in the common areas would become fixed,” and that, “As no construction… had begun by June 6, 2019, the owners’ interest in the common areas became fixed as of that date, and no subsequent development may occur on the lot without their consent.” “The summary judgment proved that you can’t try to change the rules of the game at the last minute,” said Attorney Goldman. “The contractor/assignee did nothing to develop the final lot for nearly four years after it acquired the development rights, and their attempt to circumvent the Master Deed in order to gain additional time was justifiably rejected by the Court.”
  • News Release: Condo Association Prevails in Effort to Stop Long-Delayed Development  NEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S., January 20, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ — A Norton, MA condominium owners association has successfully halted additional development in their community, thanks to a summary judgment handed down by Bristol Superior Court at the end of December. The case, G. Lopes Construction, Inc. v. Trustees of the Red Mill Village Condominium Trust, was brought about when G. Lopes Construction, which was the assignee of the original developer of the Red Mill Village Condominiums, filed suit in an attempt to extend the deadline of its phased rights to build an additional unit 14 years after the community had been established. The condo owner’s association, represented by Goldman & Pease, LLC. of Needham, MA, fought to retain control of the common area lot targeted for development. “G. Lopes did not submit a building or site plan to the Trustees for approval, nor did the company obtain any permits to develop the subject lot prior to the deadline set forth in the Master Deed,” said Howard Goldman, Esq., of Goldman & Pease. “They never provided the Trustees with any materials to indicate they had experience in building residential condominiums. In fact, during discovery, G. Lopes even admitted that it never had any intention to develop the lot, as they had never built a unit like Red Mill Village, so it was not something that they wanted to do.” In issuing the summary judgment, Superior Court Justice Jackie Cowin stated that the condominium owners, “…had a right to rely on the phasing provisions of the Master Deed to establish when and how their ownership interests in the common areas would become fixed,” and that, “As no construction… had begun by June 6, 2019, the owners’ interest in the common areas became fixed as of that date, and no subsequent development may occur on the lot without their consent.” “The summary judgment proved that you can’t try to change the rules of the game at the last minute,” said Attorney Goldman. “The contractor/assignee did nothing to develop the final lot for nearly four years after it acquired the development rights, and their attempt to circumvent the Master Deed in order to gain additional time was justifiably rejected by the Court.”  
  • Car crash suit yields $12M award in Norfolk CountyBy Christina Pazzanese, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly – PDF VersionAugust 30, 2010   Two Needham brothers who were victims of a 2006 car crash that left one of the men permanently unable to walk or speak were recently awarded $12 million in damages by a jury in Norfolk Superior Court. While the collision was caused by a driver with a record riddled with citations, license suspensions and accidents dating back to 1997, it was the man’s grandparents who proved to be the key to the big win, lawyers for the plaintiffs say. The then-26-year-old Vittorio C. Gentile Jr. of Canton was driving his grandparents’ sports utility vehicle at the time and had been found criminally responsible for the head-on collision in a separate suit. But in Silverio v. Gentile, et al., the jury found that it was his elderly grandparents, Lydia and Vittorio Gentile, who were responsible for negligently allowing him to use their 1999 Lexus SUV in the first place, after they had become aware of his extensive and poor driving record. The plaintiffs’ attorneys alleged Gentile had been hit with so many surcharges that the couple had him removed from their insurance policy even though other grandchildren were still covered and permitted to use their vehicles. The grandparents also were found to have been negligent in their failure to secure the car from the younger Gentile by routinely leaving the keys out in the open, hanging on a rack in the kitchen. Howard S. Goldman of Goldman, Goldman & Pease in Needham, who represented plaintiffs Douglas and Joseph Homsi, said the basis of the award is unusual in that the damages stem from the vehicle owners’ apparent consent to allow a dangerous driver use their car. He said the verdict is also notable for having been rendered in a state and county not always known for siding with plaintiffs in tort claims. Earlier this month, Philip T. Tierney of Finnegan, Underwood & Ryan in Boston, who represented the grandparents, filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial. Tierney did not respond to requests for an interview. The grandson’s attorney, Peter A. Palmer, of Fuller, Rosenberg, Palmer & Beliveau in Worcester, said his client stipulated to liability and offered all available coverage and has no plans to appeal the matter. The family’s personal attorney, Stuart D. Ravech of Norwood, did not respond to a request for comment. “We’re hopeful the verdict will hold,” said Worcester attorney Brian P. Burke, who was co-counsel for the plaintiffs.Going for coffeeThe Homsi brothers were driving on Blue Hill Avenue in Milton at around 2 a.m. on Dec. 10, 2006, on their way to a coffee shop, when the speeding SUV driven by Gentile veered across the double yellow lines in the roadway and collided with them head on. The damage to their vehicle was so extensive that they had to be pried from the wreckage by emergency personnel using the Jaws of Life, according to the complaint. Joseph Homsi, the passenger, suffered a broken sternum and ribs, as well as internal injuries. The driver, Douglas Homsi, bore the brunt of the impact, sustaining severe multiple bone fractures and injuries to his liver, spleen and other organs that left him unable to breathe or eat on his own. The confluence of traumas would later cause Douglas to suffer a stroke, leaving him unable to speak. Their attorneys said that, before the accident, the men, both in their 60s, were constant companions and lived together in a house in Needham. Douglas, a retired machinist, served as an informal caretaker for Joseph, who has mental disabilities. Deep pockets Goldman said given the massive trauma Douglas suffered and the extensive medical care he needed, he and his colleague quickly moved to get a pre-judgment attachment for $1.5 million against three properties the defendant grandparents own in Massachusetts, including their Westwood home. They also got an injunction to prevent the Gentiles from transferring assets, though the full extent of their non-real estate holdings is not yet known, he said. Goldman said it was clear from the outset that the younger Gentile had little in the way of assets and that his grandparents, who own more than $2 million in real estate, were going to be the deep pockets to target for the hospital bills and ongoing medical care Douglas Homsi will require the rest of his life. “We knew the injuries were horrific. This guy was in the hospital for months,” Goldman said. Like most cases in which a driver causes harm using someone else’s car, the case would be won or lost on the issue of whether the vehicle’s owners consented to its use. In Silverio, Goldman said, the defendants’ failed recollections and claims of ignorance about their grandson’s lengthy driving rap sheet were critical. “We needed to show the grandparents knew of his terrible driving record and failed to take any steps to keep him from using the car or to stop him,” Goldman said. Though the Gentiles insisted they had no idea that their grandson had their car on the night of the accident, Goldman said, there was plenty of evidence to show otherwise. A private investigator uncovered evidence that Gentile often borrowed the Lexus with the tacit consent of his grandparents, Goldman said. In fact, Gentile had been using the SUV in the 48 hours leading up to the crash, but at trial, the grandparents insisted they didn’t know who had the car or where it was. Nevertheless, they never reported it stolen or missing. Goldman said video deposition testimony provided by the insurance agent who held multiple auto vehicle policies for the couple was especially damaging to the grandparents’ claim that they had no idea their grandson was a high-risk driver. The agent described an in-person meeting with the grandparents, who had asked why their premiums had suddenly skyrocketed. When told of surcharges being added as a result of the younger Gentile’s checkered driving record, the couple and Gentile had signed an exclusion document that removed him from coverage, he said. “The jury did not believe the grandparents,” Goldman said.A high hurdle“These are very difficult cases for a plaintiff to win,” said Francis J. Lynch III of Lynch & Lynch, an attorney who frequently tries motor vehicle cases but was not involved in the suit. Negligent entrustment is an especially high hurdle for lawyers to overcome, he said, because you have to show the defendants knew or should have known about something they claim they did not. “It’s a very difficult thing to prove with a licensed operator,” Lynch said. Goldman said the jury found the defendants’ repeated claims that they were not aware their grandson was a risky driver were strongly undercut by his lengthy rap sheet for moving violations. Gentile had been found guilty and served jail time for the collision involving the Homsi brothers. He also had been involved in prior accidents, including a 2001 suit in Norfolk County in which a woman died as result of injuries she suffered after Gentile collided with her car on Route 1 in Dedham. He was found not negligent in that case, Palmer said. Because the brothers were not able to testify, the jury was shown a 20-minute demonstrative video that depicted Douglas – who still cannot speak – going through his daily routine with the help of medical technicians and physical therapists at the Needham rehabilitation facility where he receives around-the-clock care. Burke said the video was particularly effective in conveying to the jury how the Homsi brothers’ lives were forever altered in the blink of an eye. “You can be out one night driving with your brother for coffee, and the next minute you can lose half the use of your body,” he said of Douglas Homsi. “He’s a prisoner in his body, serving a sentence from which there’ll be no parole.” Verdict Report Type of action: Motor vehicle negligence Injuries alleged: Severe and permanent bodily injuries Name of case: Silverio v. Gentile, et al. Court/case no.: Norfolk Superior Court, No. 2007-212 Tried before judge or jury: Jury Name of judge: Patrick F. Brady Amount of verdict: $12 million Date: July 2010 Attorneys: Brian P. Burke of Worcester and Howard S. Goldman, Goldman, Goldman & Pease, Needham (for the plaintiff)
  • Variance To Build a Parking Structure in South Boston: Dorothy A. Leblanc and Denise Leblanc v. Christine Araujo, Angelo Buonopane, Peter Chin, Michael Monahan, and Robert Shortsleeve, as they constitute members of the Board of Appeal for the City of Boston and Paul McCologan, Sr. and Benjamin Forde, Suffolk Superior Court, Docket Number 07-5353F.This was a 4 day trial. It was a de novo appeal to the Superior Court of the granting of a variance to the Defendants to build a parking structure in South Boston. The Plaintiffs, whom we represented, challenged the granting of the variance. Key issues in the trial were whether the Plaintiffs had “standing” to challenge the issuance of the variance as aggrieved parties. Whether the parking structure will diminish the Plaintiffs’ property value. Whether the proposed structure will impede and/or block natural sunlight onto Plaintiff’s property. Whether the proposed structure will cause problems with drainage resulting in flooding on Plaintiff’s property.
  • Goldman & Pease: 2nd Largest Jury Verdict in Massachusetts for 2010Year in review: the largest jury verdicts of 2010 (PDF version)By Massachusetts Lawyers WeeklySilverio v.Gentile, et al.Norfolk Superior CourtDate of verdict: July 23, 2010Plaintiff’s attorneys: Brian P. Burke,Worcester; and Howard S. Goldman,Goldman, Goldman & Pease, NeedhamStatus of verdict: On appeal On an early December morning in 2006, two brothers from Needham were on their way to a coffee shop when an SUV traveling in the opposite direction crossed the center line and hit their vehicle head-on, causing a horrific crash for which the Jaws of Life were required to extract the victims.
  • Pre-Judgment Trustee Process Bank Account Attachment of Over $150,000.00 Makes Funds Available For Satisfaction of A Judgment for a Home Health Care AgencyGoldman & Pease, LLC successfully represented a Home Health Care Agency, who was retained by an elderly customer to provide 24/7 around the clock home health care services. The services were rendered by the Home Health Care Agency for approximately 4 months, leaving an unpaid principal balance due of over $84,000.00 which was not paid despite repeated demand. At the time of the commencement of the case, Goldman & Pease, LLC sought and obtained a trustee process bank account attachment against two bank accounts maintained by the Health Care Agency’s customer and froze over $150,000.00 held in the bank accounts. After a Motion for Assessment of Damages Hearing and Motion to Charge Trustee, Goldman & Pease, LLC obtained a Judgment for the Home Health Care Agency of over $87,000.00 which was funded and paid for from the trustee processed bank funds.
  • Legal Description of the Premises DisputeJoy Harding v. Tabitha Coleman and Mary E. Jackson, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. 04-2466.G & P represented the Defendants/purchasers in this matter. The key issue in this case was a dispute regarding the legal description of the subject premises. The subject property contained two parcels of land that clearly were delineated in the deed that Plaintiff purchased previously from another party. Plaintiff alleged he did not mean to sell the contiguous parcel not containing a home. Plaintiff alleged that he made a mistake in the legal description. Plaintiff alleged that his closing attorney when drafting the deed to convey the property to the Defendant, erroneously included both parcels as contained in the deed that Plaintiff owned. Plaintiff contends that the purchase and sale agreement and the listing agreement between he and his broker, as well as Defendants’ understanding, was that the sale of the property only meant to embrace the land on which the home was located and not the second lot that was to be retained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff states there was an error to convey both lots and this was an error that Defendants understood. Plaintiff contended that she was entitled to receive back this second lot of land. The Defendants contended that they in good faith purchased the land that Plaintiff owned and that at all times, the understanding was that Defendants, for the sale price, were purchasing both the lot of land on which the home existed, and the adjacent lot of land, all contained in one deed. Defendants contend that a deed was executed conveying what both parties agreed to be contained in the selling price (i.e. both lots) and therefore there was no mistake. Defendants stated that everything went according to agreement between the parties and therefore they are entitled to keep the second lot of land as it was bargained for in the sale price. After four days of trial, G & P prevailed on behalf of its clients and the Defendants were able to retain title to both parcels.
  • Breach of ContractMaria Armas v. Freemont Investment and Loan, Kenneth J. Perroge, and FidelityNational Title Insurance, Bristol Superior Court 2007-01790. Philip A. Brown the developer/seller, (“Seller/Developer’) built and sold to the Plaintiff the Property located at 206B Tremont Street, Taunton, Massachusetts (“Property”).  At closing, the closing attorney, accepted a fax/copy of an alleged Certificate of Occupancy for the Property from the Seller/Developer. The Town of Taunton subsequently notified the parties that the Certificate of Occupancy never properly issued and the Certificate of Occupancy presented at the closing was a forgery.  Fidelity National Title Insurance issued and Armas (“Plaintiff”) purchased an Owner’s Title Insurance Policy for the purchase of the Property. The Plaintiff never obtained a Certificate of Occupancy and the mortgage on the Property was subsequently foreclosed. The Plaintiff brought an action against Fidelity seeking damages under a breach of contract theory because Fidelity failed to pay out under the title insurance policy. The amount in controversy was the purchase price of the home lost at foreclosure, plus other damages to be determined at trial. The Plaintiff also claimed that Fidelity’s agent was negligent in failing to offer the Plaintiff an enhanced title insurance policy. G & P moved for summary judgment that was allowed in favor of Fidelity.
  • Non-compliance With License AgreementHomesteader Enterprises v. Jonathan Brickman, Brickman Publishing Corp. and Community Magazines, LLC, Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No 2008-02475. This matter arises out of a dispute between a two publishers, Jonathan Brickman, Individually, Brickman Publishing Corp., and Community Magazines, LLC (collectively, “Defendant”) and Homesteader Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) regarding the parties’ performance under certain License Agreements and other subsequent agreements. Plaintiff alleged Defendant’s non-compliance with obligations arising out of the License Agreements and subsequent agreements and, in particular, the non-competition agreement and prior settlement agreement. The Plaintiff was seeking in excess of $500,000 in damages. G & P represented Defendant in the arbitration, which took five (5) days. Key issues in the case were enforceability of non-competition agreements and restrictive covenants. The non-competition agreements were effectively held unenforceable. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Arbitrator which was denied. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate and/or Modify the Arbitration Award with the Middlesex Superior Court, which Motion was denied and the court confirmed the arbitration award.
  • Breach of a Commercial Lease AgreementBusiness Cards Overnight, Inc. doing business as Wholesale Printing Specialists v. Salvatore N. Lupoli and Nicholas A. Lupoli, Jr. As Trustees of The Riverwalk Realty Trust, II doing business a Riverwalk Partners, LLC and John S. Crowe, As Trustee of Riverwalk Realty Trust doing business as Riverwalk Development. Essex Superior Court, C.A. No. 2008-1867. This is an action for breach of a commercial lease in which G & P represented the Plaintiff/Tenant. The Plaintiff rented certain commercial space from the Defendant landlord. When negotiating a new lease with the Defendant/Landlord, the Plaintiff/Tenant realized that it had been overpaying its rent and trash removal costs since the inception of its tenancy, because it had been paying for 7,556 square feet of space when it only had 6,427.97 square feet of total space. An architect’s measurements of the usable square feet of space at the subject premises showed that there was only 6,427.97 square feet of usable space at the subject premises. While the lease provided for 7,556 square feet of rentable space, the rent calculation per year was a flat rate and the lease did not specifically provide that it was based upon square footage. The key issue in the case, upon which the Defendant/Landlord moved to dismiss upon is whether Plaintiff’s breach of lease claim seeking reimbursement of rent paid must fail as the lease is for a flat fixed fee amount regardless of the amount of square footage. The Plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking reimbursement of overpayment of rent based upon a breach of contract theory. G & P obtained summary judgment as to liability on behalf of its client and the matter is to be scheduled for an assessment of damages hearing.
  • Mechanic’s Lien and Judicial Order to Freeze Insurance Proceeds Yields Excellent Recovery for Emergency ContractorRecovered excellent mediation settlement for home improvement contractor who performed significant emergency tear-down and removal work of home destroyed by fire. The home was under-insured and heavily encumbered by mortgages, putting client at substantial risk of receiving little to no payment. Upon receiving case, we immediately investigated title and filed a Mechanic’s Lien under M.G.L 254 with the Essex Registry of Deeds, to secure the debt and prevent a sale or transfer of the subject property. We conducted a thorough investigation, contacting the property insurer and public adjuster for the homeowner to get a clear picture of available means to satisfy the debt. We further leveraged the client’s position by quickly filing a Verified Complaint with counts for Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, and Mechanic’s Lien. We additionally filed a Motion to Form a Constructive Trust on a Short Order of Notice, ultimately obtaining an order from Essex Superior Court to freeze the remaining insurance proceeds pending resolution of the case. With a lien in place and the insurance proceeds frozen, we had a very favorable position and proceeded to mediation, where the Defendant agreed to pay 95% of the amount invoiced.
  • Unit Owner Violates Condominium’s Smoking Policy Resulting in Significant Fines and Ultimate Sale of UnitGoldman & Pease represented Condominium Trustees in an action seeking to enforce the Condominium’s smoking policy against a unit owner whose smoking infiltrated the common areas of the Condominium, in violation of the Condominium’s smoking policy. We sent repeated written demand to the unit owner to cease smoking in the Condominium and advised the Trustees to levy fines for the unit owner’s continuing violation in accordance with the Condominium’s Rules and Regulations. However, when the unit owner refused to comply with the smoking policy and to pay the fines, Goldman & Pease commenced a civil action in Quincy District Court seeking to recoup payment of the outstanding fines and to enjoin the unit owner from further violating the smoking policy. After propounding extensive discovery upon the unit owner, we were able to negotiate a settlement whereby the unit owner paid the total outstanding fines and ultimately moved out of the Condominium.  
  • Trial win for Biohazard Removal Contractor against Landlord, where Contract was signed by TenantPrevailed at trial under a theory of quantum meruit for client emergency services and biohazard cleanup contractor against property owner/landlord. An overdose death had occurred on the property, and our client was called in to clean and rid the house of contaminants. Property owner was unavailable at the time of the emergency, and the work was authorized on the his behalf by an insolvent tenant. Landlord denied liability for payment and retained defense counsel. After our numerous attempts to negotiate settlement led to no offer from the landlord, we proceeded to trial in the Taunton District Court, where we successfully argued that the landlord was liable for the fair market value of the services rendered due to the emergency nature of the work and the fact that the landlord was the primary beneficiary of the services. Although property owner argued that he had no advance knowledge of work and did not authorize the contract, judgment entered for the contractor in the amount invoiced. We proceeded to levy and suspend the execution on the judgment, forcing the owner to promptly pay off the judgment, including post-judgment interest and legal fees.
  • Enforcement of Liquidated Damages Clause in Franchise Commercial Lease Represented a franchisor in a case where a franchisee tenant defaulted in a lease that contained a liquidated damages clause, resulting in over $1 million owed to the landlord. In the commercial lease context, a liquidated damages clause may provide for an acceleration of future rents owed following the early termination of the lease. These so-called “rent acceleration clauses” are typically enforceable, provided two criteria are satisfied: (1) at the time of contracting the actual damages flowing from a breach were difficult to ascertain; and (2) the sum agreed on as liquidated damages represents a “reasonable forecast of damages expected to occur in the event of a breach.” Goldman & Pease defended the franchisor against the landlord’s aggressive pursuit of enforcing the rent acceleration clause and obtained a favorable settlement in light of the strong case law supporting the enforceability of rent acceleration clauses in commercial leases.  
  • Defended Corporate Executive Against Claims Of Wrongful TerminationSuccessfully defended high-level executive of multinational corporation from claims of detrimental reliance and wrongful termination based on personal relationship with former employee. Although the executive had no part in the former employee’s termination, the employee engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct via social media after their personal relationship ended, ultimately retaining counsel to issue a demand seeking damages from the executive. We swiftly issued a cease and desist letter based on the harassing conduct, and demanded that all evidence of the harassment be preserved. Opposing counsel repeatedly threatened litigation to solicit a settlement offer from our affluent client, but we firmly maintained that any such action would be frivolous and would be met with relevant counterclaims. No settlement was ever discussed and no lawsuit was filed by the employee.
  • Successful Motion to Reach & Apply Funds Held By Investment Company in Collection ActionRecouped significant outstanding balance for a home healthcare services provider by moving to reach and apply funds held by investment company on behalf of debtor. In this case, we filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and quantum meruit arising out of the debtor’s failure to pay for certain home healthcare services over the course of six weeks in 2015. We also brought a claim to reach and apply funds held by the investment company because we knew that the debtor had a securities account with the investment company that was worth more than the debt he owed to the home healthcare services provider. After obtaining a judgment for the full amount of home healthcare services provided to the defendant plus interest and costs, Goldman & Pease moved to reach and apply the funds held by the investment company. Shortly thereafter, the investment company dispersed the entire judgment amount to the home healthcare services provider, in accordance with the court’s order. As a result of this successful reach and apply strategy, the home healthcare services provider was made whole almost immediately following the judgment in its favor.
  • Significant Global Settlement Against Contractor and Home Inspection Company in Construction Defect LawsuitRepresented the purchaser of a home in Newton with significant construction and structural defects in claims against the seller of the home and the inspection company that conducted the inspection prior to the sale of the home. After moving into the home, the purchaser discovered extensive construction and structural defects present in the home’s foundation and addition, which were not disclosed by the seller or the inspection company in the final inspection report. Goldman & Pease drafted a seven-count complaint alleging claims of breach of contract, violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the home inspection company and fraud, negligence and unjust enrichment against the seller. The parties engaged in extensive discovery before agreeing to mediate the case. At the mediation, Goldman & Pease obtained a significant global settlement favorable to purchaser which allowed purchaser to tear down and reconstruct the damaged areas of home.
  • Obtained permanent, exclusive, easement against neighboring property. Our clients’ driveway and garden areas encroached onto their neighbors’ land, leading to a contentious dispute. We filed an adverse possession and prescriptive easement action in the Land Court seeking to assert our clients’ rights to the disputed portions. We further recorded a Notice of Lis Pendens with the Registry of Deeds to encumber the neighbors’ property pending resolution of the matter. The neighbors filed a competing quiet title action in the Land Court seeking to obtain the court’s declaration that they held title to disputed portions in fee simple. With a long, litigious, courtroom dispute appearing likely, we advised our clients to participate in early mediation. There, in light of our compelling argument that our clients, combined with their predecessors-in-title, had exercised sufficient and non-permissive dominion and control over the disputed portions, for a period in excess twenty years, we were able to negotiate a highly favorable settlement for our clients by which they were granted a permanent and exclusive easement on the disputed portions. Furthermore, there was no cash payout nor land swap to the neighbors, as had initially been proposed.
Representative Clients:
  • Medical Malpractice/Insurance Work Multimillion-dollar wrongful death recovery – against a major hospital where emergency room staff failed to identified the internal bleeding of a young woman who had given birth via C-section just days earlier. Multimillion-dollar malpractice recovery for a hospital’s failure to diagnose and timely treat an infant who was severely dehydrated and as a result suffered impairments that led to cerebral palsy.
  • The Legal System Works  The Legal System Works by MetroWest Magazine. Attorney Howard Goldman represented this party that was suffering from years of payments under the non-compete agreement, which amounted to more than $100,000. The business was struggling to grow despite this drag that amounted to substantial proportions of its would-be profits.
  • Mechanic’s Liens/Collection MattersMechanics liens, with their many specific requirements, provide powerful leverage for contractors, landscapers, home builders and others seeking to get paid for the work they’ve provided. Goldman & Pease knows that time is of the essence, that the laws of mechanics liens are exacting, and we regularly obtains that leverage to help our clients collect outstanding monies due on contracts involving work on properties.  Recently we liened a multifamily property which had obtained sizable insurance recovery money from the 2018 Merrimack Valley Columbia Gas explosion, after the property owner then refused to pay the local contractors who worked to repair the property.  The lien provided necessary leverage to bring the parties to settlement for payment.
  • Condominium LawInsurance Coverage – Represent individuals and board in dispute concerning insurance coverage: whose coverage applies, and will it cover certain claims. We also regularly advise condominium boards regarding how to maximize coverage over the long haul, shape coverage to the specific needs of the condominium, and how to rein in deductible increases.Derivative Lawsuits – Goldman & Pease has been on both sides of these disputes, the processes of which are dictated by Massachusetts statute. Derivative claims concern unit owners who bring claims not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the condominium as a whole.  On behalf of Condominium – A recent case in which we defended a condominium against a derivative claim concerned the issue of what constitutes a majority of trustees? In many condominium documents, only a majority is allowed to take certain actions. Some unusual language in these condominium documents left that term up to debate.  Following motions for preliminary injunction and motions to dismiss, the parties successfully resolved their claims through an intensive mediation process and subsequent settlement discussions.  On behalf of Unit Owners – Brought a derivative liability action against a condominium association and successfully got replacement of a new roof and payment for legal fees.  Specific Day-to-Day Services – While we do step in when crises and conflicts emerge, Goldman & Pease also provides the services to meet condominium boards’ everyday legal needs. Our decades of experience include assisting private developers in the creation of condominiums, drafting and amending condominium documents, advising nascent and experienced condominium boards on best practices, providing late fee collection services, assessing fees and fines, and asserting condominiums’ superlien rights through and including foreclosure sales.
  • Residential and Commercial Property Purchases, Closings, and LoansResidential – Goldman & Pease has efficiently handled hundreds of residential home purchases and sales over the years, and in addition to the review and execution of all necessary documents and analyses, we bring a real estate litigator’s eye to the review of title documents. On more than one occasion we have alerted clients to potential title issues that would have otherwise gone unnoticed, and have know-how to fix these issues prior to closing.Commercial – Regularly represent banks, mortgage companies and private lenders to facilitation commercial loans, including multimillion-dollar loans to some of New England’s largest condominium complexes, to facilitate capital repairs and improvements. Services include drafting loan documents and amendments, trustee and owner certifications, updating clients on changes to state and federal loan regulations and necessary documentation, and facilitation deed documents and the efficient, timely recording of instruments.
  • Condominium Law Cases Massachusetts Condominium Law Cases Types of condo law cases handled by the Massachusetts condominium attorneys at Goldman & Pease: Successfully represented condominium associations against contractors and developers on such issues as breach of fiduciary duty, defective workmanship, violation of the warranty of habitability, etc. Represent in excess of 40 condominium associations throughout Massachusetts, with rules enforcement, developer phasing, condominium documents amendments, collection of outstanding condominium fees and special assessments, and formation and conversions. Establish condominiums, including drafting the master deed, declaration of trust, rules and regulations, etc. Representation of developers in all phases of development, including purchase, sale, zoning, permitting, and construction related matters. Representation of builders, contractors, floor sanding companies, kitchen design and cabinetry firms, and HVAC companies with regard to establishing their companies, on-going corporate matter as well as litigation. Represent developers of single family to multiple family condominiums in renovations, conversions, and new construction with sales prices from $400,000.00 – $4,500,000.00. Represent contractors and subcontractors to enforce statutory mechanics liens for outstanding balances. Appear at zoning board hearings on behalf of homeowners and developers throughout the state for special permits, variances and 40B projects. Conducted hundreds of evictions on behalf of landlords and property managers for non-payment of rent, drug evictions, nuisance evictions, failure to vacate after a lease termination, violation of pet policies, noise, harassment, and violation of lease terms. Obtained a summary judgment of dismissal of a claim brought by a Civic Association against our client, a Boston real estate developer, and the Boston Zoning Board of Appeals alleging that our client had not properly obtained a permit. This favorable outcome enabled our client to successfully complete the development project. Successfully represented banks, mortgage companies, private lenders, buyers, and sellers in over 500 closings including, but not limited to, drafting loan documents and security agreements, purchase and sales agreements, drafting the requisite closing documents, recording the same, performing title searches, writing title insurance, and all other matters related to both residential and commercial lending. Represent condominium associations in obtaining a settlement of over $150,000.00 against a developer and sub-contractors on claims of defective design and installation of the roofs at the condominium complex. Represent condominium association at the trial court level and then on appeal against a bank who foreclosed for failure to pay delinquent condominium fees and collected both the fees and attorneys fees to prosecute said litigation. Contact us for prompt assistance with your condominium law case. Contact the condominium law attorneys at Goldman & Pease for a case evaluation regarding your Massachusetts condo legal matter. Our condominium law attorneys handle all aspects of condo law in Massachusetts including association representation, condominium formation, rules enforcement, and fee collection cases. We serve clients throughout the Greater Boston region including Allston, Arlington, Belmont, Brighton, Brookline, Cambridge, Canton, Dedham, Dover, Milton, Natick, Needham, Newton, Norwood, Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, Wellesley, Weston, West Roxbury, Westwood, and all of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
  • Business Law Cases Massachusetts Corporate & Business Law CasesTypes of business law cases handled by the Massachusetts corporate and business law attorneys at Goldman & Pease:Represent small to medium size business owners in establishing entities which maximize their flexibility for future growth while limiting the business owners personal liability including, but not limited to, creating S corporations, C corporations, limited liability corporations, general partnerships, limited liability partnerships, stock restriction agreements. Represent employers on human resource issues including drafting employment contracts, employment handbooks, partnership agreements, independent contractor agreements, non-competition agreements, confidentiality agreements, severance agreements, and other employment related matters with companies of annual revenues from $500,000.00 – $5,000,000.00. Represent business owners in buying and selling their businesses including drafting asset purchase agreements, stock purchase agreements, assistance with commercial financing, commercial leasing issues, etc. Represent the purchaser of a recreational vehicle retailer in the purchase of existing company assets and underlying real estate and assisted in floor plan financing. Represent dentists in sale of dental practices with revenue amounts ranging from $250,000.00 – $1,200,000.00. Represent start-up businesses in software applications, wholesale distributors, medical consulting, franchisees, HVAC contractors, and real estate developers, LLC formations and negotiating operating agreements. Represented a machine distributor in its reorganization, division spin-off and bank refinance with annual sales in excess of $40,000.00. Assisted the relocation of a minority-owned food catering business as part of the Roxbury revitalization including LLC formation, commercial lease negotiation, and other business terms negotiation, including a guarantee sales provision. Successfully assisted a cleaning wholesaler on asset sale in excess of $5,000.000.00 purchase price. Represented a jet engine component manufacturer acquiring the assets of an existing company with purchase price in excess of $6,000,000.00 and ancillary bank financing, and indemnity provisions on hazardous waste. Represented a retail clothier in negotiation of its long term commercial lease. Represented a restaurant owner in bringing in new partners and asset sales to third parties with annual revenues from $500,000.00 – $1,500,000.00. Represented a kitchen cabinet retailer in expanding throughout the state with annual sales in excess of $8,000,000.00. Corporate counsel to a private placement company that successfully raised equity capital for the expansion and growth of a national wine and spirits company.Contact us for prompt assistance with your business matter.Contact the business law attorneys at Goldman & Pease for a case evaluation regarding your corporate and business law matter.Our business lawyers handle all aspects of business law including corporate formations, mergers & acquisitions, employment law, and contracts. We serve clients throughout the Greater Boston region including Allston, Arlington, Belmont, Brighton, Brookline, Cambridge, Canton, Dedham, Dover, Milton, Natick, Needham, Newton, Norwood, Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, Wellesley, Weston, West Roxbury, Westwood, and all of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
  • Real Estate Cases Massachusetts Real Estate CasesTypes of cases handled by the Massachusetts real estate attorneys at Goldman & Pease:Conducted hundreds of evictions on behalf of landlords and property managers for non-payment of rent, drug evictions, nuisance evictions, failure to vacate after a lease termination, violation of pet policies, noise, harassment, and violation of lease terms. Engage in curative title actions in Superior Court and Land Court for title insurance companies and private owners of land, for such matters as boundary disputes, adverse possession, inaccurate legal description, defective discharges, and equitable subrogation claims. Successfully represent condominium associations against contractors and developers on such issues as breach of fiduciary duty, defective workmanship, and violation of the warranty of habitability, etc. Establish condominiums, including drafting the master deed, declaration of trust, rules and regulations, etc. Representation of developers in all phases of development, including purchase, sale, zoning, permitting, and construction related matters. Representation of builders, contractors, floor sanding companies, kitchen design and cabinetry firms, and HVAC companies with regard to establishing their companies, 9; on-going corporate matter as well as litigation. Represent in excess of 50 condominium associations throughout Massachusetts, with rules enforcement, developer phasing, condominium documents amendments, collection of outstanding condominium fees and special assessments, and formation and conversions. Represent developers of single family to multiple family condominiums in renovations, conversions, and new construction with sales price from $400,000.00 – $4,500,000.00. Represent contractors and subcontractors to enforce statutory mechanics liens for outstanding balances. Appear at zoning board hearings on behalf of homeowners and developers throughout the state for special permits, variances and 40B projects.  Contact us for prompt assistance with your real estate matter.Contact the real estate attorneys at Goldman & Pease for a case evaluation regarding your real estate law matter.Our real estate lawyers concentrate in commercial and residential real estate cases. We serve clients throughout the Greater Boston region including Allston, Arlington, Belmont, Brighton, Brookline, Cambridge, Canton, Dedham, Dover, Milton, Natick, Needham, Newton, Norwood, Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, Wellesley, Weston, West Roxbury, Westwood, and all of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
  • Quiet Title Actions – We represent national title insurers as well as individuals, seeking to cure title defects ranging from misidentified title plans, deed description errors, conveyancing errors, and missing elements in the chain of title. A recent action in Rhode Island Superior Court involved a plot plan that misidentified one property for another, a prior quiet title action that misidentified the property in another error, and our successful effort to expedite a hearing during the pandemic to vacate a judgment and finally, properly, quiet title to the property.
  • We recently successfully negotiated a claim of legal malpractice for buyer’s counsel’s failure to monitor dates of purchase and sale agreement.
  • Zoning Appeals – We appear regularly before zoning boards, and a recent example is seeking relief from a Metrowest the zoning board of appeals to help a client obtain a special permit in light of a newly discovered title defect.
  • Preliminary Relief – We regularly protect residential property purchasers’ interests by seeking preliminary relief through notice of lis pendens, a judicial mechanism halting the sale of real property until a dispute is resolved. In a recent matter our client, the purchaser of a multifamily dwelling, learned of multiple hidden defects prior to closing. The seller sought to sell to the next buyer despite language in the purchase and sale agreement allowing for a revision of the purchase price. Our efforts in Massachusetts Land Court successfully prevented the seller from moving on to next purchaser, prompting re-negotiations regarding price in light of defects. A sale quickly resolved.
  • Encroachments and Adverse Possession – Adverse possession claims arise more often than a Massachusetts homeowner might think. As the primary asset for many households, problems come up when Massachusetts boundary lines and plot plans stretch back sometimes hundreds of years. A recent dispute between two neighbors illustrates a common source of these boundary disputes: new fencing one neighbor seeks to install. Upon a survey to appropriately place the new fencing, it was discovered the boundary line between the two properties was not where either neighbor thought.  Claims of adverse possession ensued, with the matter likely requiring adjudication to resolve the issue.
  • Successful Motion to Reach & Apply Funds Held By Investment Company in Collection Action Recouped significant outstanding balance for a home healthcare services provider by moving to reach and apply funds held by investment company on behalf of debtor. In this case, we filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and quantum meruit arising out of the debtor’s failure to pay for certain home healthcare services over the course of six weeks in 2015. 
  • Enforcement of Liquidated Damages Clause in Franchise Commercial Lease Represented a franchisor in a case where a franchisee tenant defaulted in a lease that contained a liquidated damages clause, resulting in over $1 million owed to the landlord. In the commercial lease context, a liquidated damages clause may provide for an acceleration of future rents owed following the early termination of the lease. 
Honors/Awards:
  • Attorney Howard Goldman appeared on the “Radio Entrepreneurs” Show. The show provides advice, information and connections for entrepreneurs, service providers and established companies. Local Stations:WBNW 1120 AM – Needham, MAWPLM 1390 AM – Plymouth, MAWESO 970 AM – Southbridge, MA, Radio Entrepreneurs Show. , Radio Entrepreneurs
  • , SuperLawyers, SuperLawyers, 2021
Videos:
Newsletters:
Bar/Professional Activity:
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
  • Federal District Bankruptcy Court
  • U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island
  • U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
  • Licensed in RI and Massachusetts and is active member of the Massachusetts, RI  and Norfolk Bar Associations in his specialty areas.
Pro bono/Community Service:
  • Needham Education Foundation, Board 
  • Federal District Court’s Pro Bono Mediation Program, Advocate
  • Jewish Big Brother & Sister Association of Massachusetts, Board of Directors
  • Smaller Business Association of New England, Former Board Member
  • Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce
  • Temple Beth Shalom Brotherhood, Board
Scholarly Lectures/Writings:
  • Q&A: Peeping Tom, New England Condominium, 2014
  • Lecture, Institute of Real Estate Managers & Community Association Institute
  • Panel, Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, Boston Municipal Court
  • Q&A: Voting by Proxy, New England Condominium, 2017
  • Converting Your Rental Income Property, New England Condominium, 2014
  • Transfer of Power, New England Condominium, 2015
  • The Rise of Airbnb, New England Condominium, 2016
  • Q&A: Invasion of Privacy, New England Condominium, 2016
  • Medical Marijuana and the Law, New England Condominium, 2016
Educational Background:
  • Cornell University, Honors Graduate, 1979

Office location for Howard S. Goldman

160 Gould Street
Suite 320
Needham, MA 02494

Phone: 781-816-2771

Selections

3 Years Super Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers: 2020 - 2022

Additional sources of information about Howard S. Goldman

Attorney resources for Howard S. Goldman

Page Generated: 0.14774799346924 sec