Shafir v. Steele
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
727 N.E.2d 1140 (2000)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Duane Steele (defendant) was in default on his mortgage held by Shawmut Bank (Shawmut). Shawmut and Steele agreed on a restructuring, under which Steele’s children would bid a minimum amount at the foreclosure sale. The agreement was contingent on the children’s submitting the highest bid at the sale. At the foreclosure sale, Frances Shafir (plaintiff), who owned a local movie theater, submitted the highest bid and signed an agreement with Shawmut to buy the property. Steele was upset that his children did not win the property at auction and engaged in harassing conduct against Shafir. Steele owned a newspaper and published an editorial criticizing Shafir. Steele also showed up at Shafir’s movie theater in a menacing manner, and he presented Shafir with a frivolous lawsuit against her. Ultimately, Shafir determined that Steele’s harassment was not going to stop. As a result, Shafir sought to get out of her contract with Shawmut. Shawmut, however, refused to return Shafir’s deposit. Shafir sued Steele for intentionally interfering with her ability to perform under her contract with Shawmut. The jury ruled in Shafir’s favor. The court denied Steele’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Steele appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.