Schrenko v. Regnante
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
537 N.E.2d 1261 (1989)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Michael and Joanna Schrenko (plaintiffs) contracted to buy a house from James and Jean Mazareas (defendants) for $360,000. Pursuant to the purchase agreement, the Schrenkos paid a $16,000 deposit. The contract stated that if the Schrenkos breached the agreement, then the Mazareas could choose to keep the deposit as liquidated damages if the Mazareas wanted to do so. Ultimately, the Schrenkos did not go through with the purchase. A week later, the Mazareas sold the house to someone else for $385,000. After that, the Mazareas’ attorneys, Theodore Regnante and other members of his law firm (defendants), sent the Schrenkos a letter saying that the Mazareas were both keeping the deposit as liquidated damages and possibly seeking further damages resulting from the Schrenkos’ breach. The Schrenkos sued the Mazareas and the lawyers to recover the deposit. The Mazareas claimed nearly $19,000 in damages from the Schrenkos’ breach. This damage estimate ignored the fact the Mazareas made an extra $25,000 from the later, substitute sale of the house. The trial court did not consider anything that happened after the Schrenkos’ breach and ruled in favor of the Mazareas and the lawyers. The Schrenkos appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.