Litigation Cases
Attorney Richard S. Ravosa has tried numerous jury and bench trials in the Superior Court, District Court, Land Court, US Immigration Court and US Bankruptcy Court and argued cases on appeal before the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as well as the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
Some noteworthy cases that have made positive contributions to the jurisprudence of the bench and bar are:
Strayton v. Champion Mortgage (In re Strayton) 360 B.R. 8 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007).
In January of 2007, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Somma enjoined the completion of a foreclosure sale (that 30 days to finish paying) because the foreclosing lender did not take any action to market the property, including contacting a broker. Strayton v. Champion Mortgage, div. of Key Bank USA, NA (In re Strayton). Judge Somma also took issue with the absence of an appraisal or broker price opinion, presumably to allow the lender to cancel the auction if the bid price did not approach market value. In this case, the $130,000.00 bid price was notably less than the market value of at least $325,000.00. 

Zullo v. Lombardo (In re Lombardo), No. 13-9004 (1st Cir. June 13, 2014).
Zullo, the creditor waited too long to amend his adversary complaint and because of that, the bankruptcy judge’s denial of Zullo’s motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion.Zullo v. Lombardo (In re Lombardo), No. 13-9004 (1st Cir. June 13, 2014). The case involved an apprentice plumber (Debtor Lombardo) represented by Attorney Richard S. Ravosa. Lombardo,  who passed himself off as a master plumber, did an inadequate job and cost the creditor (Zullo) substantial additional money to correct his work. Zullo sued and won a substantial award in state court. After the debtor Lombardo  filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Zullo fought it by filing an adversary proceeding seeking an order of nondischargeability of the state court judgment under section 523(a)(6) which excepts from discharge debts caused by willful injury. After losing a motion for summary judgment and being informed by the court that a claim under section 523(a)(2)(A), which excepts debts based on fraud, might have succeeded, Zullo moved to amend to add a claim under that section. Attorney Ravosa successfully argued and persuaded the trial judge that the timing of the creditor’s motion to amend, which was was seventeen months after filing the complaint and one week before trial, was untimely and prejudicial. 
Other reported decisions include:
In re Creighton,  427 B.R. 24 (Bankr. D. Mass. February 16, 2007)
In re Arroyo, 470 B.R. 18 (Bankr. D. Mass. April 24, 2012)


copyright@ All Right Reserved |2015