A year or so ago I reported on the facts surrounding the conveyance of a condominium unit at 61-63 Walden Street, Cambridge to City Councillor Marjorie Decker. See Who Owns What at City Hall? What Your Public Records Can Tell You. In a nutshell, the deed said she got it for nothing, she claims she paid for it, and no documentary stamp tax appears to have been paid. See Councillor Decker’s answer in the Cambridge Chronicle.

This year things have gotten more interesting. An alert reader told me that there was litigation going on regarding this transaction. When someone sues, they are unhappy about something, usually money. There are two related cases filed at Middlesex Superior Court.

The first case filed, Civil Action 10-1500, is MDG Group, LLC as Trustee of 63 Walden Street Trust, Plaintiff, v. Marjorie Decker, a/k/a Marjorie Decker-Bandar and Bahij Bandar, Defendants.

According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, MDG Group is Raymond B. Bandar. He is the Councillor’s husband’s uncle, former owner of The Averof restaurant, and a real estate developer. The Walden-Richdale Condominium (61-63 Walden and 122-124 Richdale) was developed by a partnership of Raymond Bandar, former anti-tenant City Councillor and convicted felon William H. Walsh, and Muireann Glenmullen. The deed to Ms. Decker, which is recorded with Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 48761, Page 468, lists the grantor as First Camreal Corp. as Trustee of the 63 Walden Street Trust. The plaintiff claims that MDG Group, LLC is now the trustee. That claim is disputed by Walsh and Glenmullen.

The complaint lays out the Plaintiff’s version of the facts, a four count allegation of injury and damages, and a demand for judgment of $200,000 plus costs. Alleged facts include the $350,000 first mortgage to Cambridge Savings Bank on the Walden Street unit, and the $200,000 “second” mortgage on her Linnaean Street condo to First Camreal Corp. as Trustee of the 63 Walden Street Trust. The Plaintiff also claims that the “second” mortgage was written to be secured by the Walden Street unit, but was altered to be secured by the Linnaean Street unit. (Apparently I wasn’t the only one to suspect that.)

The four allegations in the complaint are (all quotes are from the complaint):

I-BREACH OF CONTRACT

Decker has not repaid any of the $200,000 mortgage, breaching the contract represented by the note and mortgage and causing injury to the Plaintiff.

II-UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Despite the fact that the deed clearly states that nothing was paid for the Walden Street unit, “[t]he Plaintiff did sell to Decker the property in question for a total price of $550,000,” which happens to be the sum of the two mortgages. As a result of Decker’s not paying the mortgage “the Plaintiff has been unjustly impoverished, and Decker unjustly enriched.”

III-MISREPRESENTATION

“The Plaintiff in reasonable reliance on the factual representations made by Decker changed its position and conveyed the property in question to Decker.”

“Decker made representations knowingly, willfully or intentionally with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff and has failed and/or refused to repay the $200,000.00 without excuse to the Plaintiff.”

IV-FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE

“ On April 14, 2010, Decker conveyed the property owned by her at 61 Walden Street and 42 Linnaean Street to herself and Bahij M. Bandar each for consideration of $100.00 or less.”

“The conveyance of each of said properties indicates that each conveyance was made to, ‘Bahij M. Bandar and Marjorie Decker-Bandar, Husband and Wife, as tenants by the entirety.’”

“The conveyance by Decker to herself and her husband is fraudulent as the property remaining owned by Decker after the conveyance, is unreasonably small to satisfy her known obligations.”

“The conveyance by Decker to herself and her husband was made with actual intent to hinder delay and defraud either present or future Creditors.”

Interesting, but why didn’t he just foreclose the mortgage? Perhaps because it went on record as a third mortgage on a unit that did not have the value to support it, i.e., the unit was worth less than what was owed on it, and if he foreclosed the holder of a prior mortgage would foreclose and wipe him out. Being secured by the Linnaean Street unit makes this mortgage problematic to enforce.

In a motion, Bandar also asks the court to allow a $200,000 attachment against all of Ms. Decker’s property in Middlesex County (the two condo units) and a lis pendens on both properties, in other words, a lien and a notice of the existence of the lawsuit to be recorded in the registry of deeds.

The next thing of note in the case file is Walsh’s Emergency Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum and for Protective Order.

This document lays out the case that Bandar acted improperly in appointing MDG trustee and filing this suit in that capacity. It says that since July 2, 2005, the beneficiaries of the trust have been Ogunquit Development Corp. (Walsh’s interest), Leinster One, LLC (Glenmullen’s interest) and Raymond Bandar individually, one-third each. The motion continues, “On January 15, 2010, Bandar fraudulently filed a ‘Beneficiary’s Certificate’ and an ‘Acceptance and Appointment and Removal of First Camreal Corp,’ through which he asserted that he held the entire beneficial interest of the Trust, and purported to remove First Camreal as trustee and to appoint MDG as trustee in its stead.”

This is all fascinating, I know. But wait! There’s more! Come back next week for the next installment.

Photo from the City of Cambridge property database.