Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TRIAL COURT
HAMPDEN, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
50 State Street, Springfield, MA 01103
CIVIL ACTIONNO2G 2 47
)
MATHIEU FORD SALES, INC., )
Plaintiff )
Vv. COMPLAINT
MPDEN COUNTY
ROBERT J. STONE a/k/a ROBERT STONE ) ‘SUPERIOR COURT
d/b/a BARON AUTO SALES,
Defendant
MAY’ 07 2024
PARTIES CLERK OF COURTS
The Plaintiff, Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation duly organized by
law, with a principal place of business at 664 Spring Street, Winchendon, Worcester
County, Massachusetts 02726.
The Defendant, Robert J. Stone a/k/a Robert Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales, is an individual
who resides at 75 Havenurst Road, West Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts
01089.
FACTS
The Plaintiff operates a Ford automobile dealership in Winchendon, Massachusetts.
The Defendant operates a used car dealership in West Springfield, Massachusetts.
Over the years, the Plaintiff sold many used cars to the Defendant.
The Defendant sold the vehicles purchased from the Plaintiff at his used car dealership.
The Defendant acquired twenty-four (24) vehicles (“Vehicles”) from the Plaintiff.
The agreed price for the Vehicles was $180,200.00.
A true and accurate copy of list of the Vehicles is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
10. The Defendant did not pay for the Vehicles within the time-frame agreed upon between
the parties.
11 The Plaintiff made demand upon the Defendant to pay for the Vehicles.
12 The Defendant made three (3) payments to the Plaintiff between April 9, 2019 and May
29, 2019 in the total amount of $17,250.00.
13 The above referenced payments reduced the principal balance owed from $180,200.00 to
$162,950.00.
14. To resolve the dispute between them over the purchase of the above Vehicles, the parties
agreed that the Defendant would execute a Note to the Plaintiff.
15 On or about June 5, 2019, the Defendant executed a Note in the principal amount of
$162,950.00 in connection with the purchase of the above referenced Vehicles.
16. A true copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
17. In the Note, Defendant agreed to make monthly payments between $1,000.00 and
$5,000.00.
18. The Defendant failed to make payment as agreed.
19. On or about February 6, 2024, the Plaintiff sent a 93A Demand Letter (“93A Demand
Letter’’) to the Defendant.
20 A true copy of the 93A Demand Letter is appended hereto as Exhibit “C”.
21 The Defendant, through counsel, responded to the 93A Demand Letter by letter.
22 A true copy of the Defendant’s response to the 93A Demand Letter (“Response to 93A
Demand”) is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.
23 The Defendant did not make a settlement offer in Response to 93A Demand.
24. The Plaintiff sent a second letter, this time to the Defendant’s attorney, to respond to the
Response to 93A on or about April 15, 2024 (“April 15 Letter”).
25 A true copy of the April 15 Letter is appended hereto as Exhibit “E”.
26 To-date, neither the Defendant nor his attorney have responded to the April 15 Letter.
COUNTI
Breach of Promissory Note
27 The Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
3
28 The Defendant executed a Note in favor of the Plaintiff in which it was agreed that
$162,950.00 would be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. See Exhibit “B”.
29 The Defendant breached the Note by failing to make payments in accordance with the
terms of the Note.
30 As aresult of the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100
($162,950.00) DOLLARS.
31 In addition to the above sum, the Defendant owes statutory interest at the rate of twelve
percent (12%) per annum in accordance with MGL c. 231 §6C.
32, The Defendant now owes the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE
THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE AND 24/100 ($259,059.24) DOLLARS, which includes
interest at the statutory rate of 12% calculated from June 5, 2019, default date, through the
date of the filing of the Complaint in the amount of NINETY-SIX THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED NINE AND 24/100 ($96,109.24) DOLLARS.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands a money judgment against the Defendant, plus all
applicable interest at the statutory rate of 12%, costs and whatever other relief that this Court deems
fair and just.
COUNT II
UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
33 The Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
34, The Defendant has received approximately twenty-four (24) vehicles (“Vehicles”) from
the Plaintiff for which he has not paid or paid in full.
35 The Defendant retained said Vehicles, or the proceeds received from the Defendant’s
subsequent sale of said Vehicles.
36. The Plaintiff conferred a valuable benefit upon the Defendant.
37. The Defendant has retained property or money, to which he is not entitled, and which in
equity and good conscience should be returned to the Plaintiff.
38 The Defendant reasonably would have expected to compensate the Plaintiff for the benefit
conferred upon him.
39 The Defendant has improperly retained ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND
NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 ($162,950.00) DOLLARS of the Plaintiff's
money.
40. The Defendant now owes the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE
THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE AND 24/100 ($259,059.24) DOLLARS, which includes
interest at the statutory rate of 12% calculated from June 5, 2019, default date, through the
date of the filing of the Complaint in the amount of NINETY-SIX THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED NINE AND 24/100 ($96,109.24) DOLLARS.
5
COUNT I
CONVERSION
41 The Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
42 The Defendant has intentionally and wrongfully exercised acts of ownership, control or
dominion over the property of the Plaintiff.
43 The Defendant has no right of possession to the property it received from the Plaintiff.
44 The Defendant has improperly exercised acts of ownership, control or dominion over the
Vehicles acquired from the Plaintiff and/or the proceeds realized from the sale of same.
45 The Defendant has improperly retained property or proceeds with a value of ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100
($162,950.00) DOLLARS, not including intertest, costs, attorney’s fees or multiple
damages pursuant to MGL. c. 93A.
46. The Defendant now owes the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE
THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE AND 24/100 ($259,059.24) DOLLARS, which includes
interest at the statutory rate of 12% calculated from June 5, 2019, default date, through the
date of the filing of the Complaint in the amount of NINETY-SIX THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED NINE AND 24/100 ($96,109.24) DOLLARS.
COUNT IV
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (93A)
6
47. The Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each of the allegations made in Paragraphs |
through 45 above.
48 Atall times relevant hereto, the Defendant has been engaged in a trade or commerce within
the meaning of MGL c. 93A §11.
49 The Defendant acquired vehicles from the Plaintiff for which he has not paid the Plaintiff.
50. The Defendant has sold vehicles acquired from the Plaintiff to third parties in exchange for
money.
31 The Defendant has failed to apply the proceeds from the sale of vehicles acquired from the
Plaintiff to the monies he owes the Plaintiff.
52 The acts and omissions of the Defendant referenced above were willful and intentional.
53 The acts and omissions of the Defendant referenced above were unfair and deceptive within
the meaning of M.G.L. c. 93A §11.
54. As aresult of the above act and omissions, the Plaintiff has been damaged.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment enter against the
Defendant on Counts I through IV, plus continuing interest and costs. The Plaintiff also
respectfully requests that it be awarded treble damages and attorneys fees pursuant to MGL. c.
93A§11 and such other relief as this Court deems fair and just.
The Plaintiff, Mai Ford Sales, Inc.,
by its Counsel
Joy H. Allen, Esq. BBO # 638033
. Rosenbaum, Esq. BBO#6600715
0 Main Street, Suite 1506
‘© Box 15567
Springfield, MA 01115
Tel (413) 645-5080
Fax (413) 645-5084
Email: jon@allenlawma.com
Date: May ; 2024
EXHIBIT A
bras |i
i|
F 1G20° |
OQ? _ VwReK 3/8) SF\vAayesHieRere
1500" of ed? Feel eche BIT 2FMDK4 TCA TEARS
‘QUEseo Ref} Dodee Rasen 21% CARRIATEEG MATIC
47080 | Done, ORR FFSD°A 1b IF Tio BI RTBEESISAR-
W220 ROIY Ain Seasen 8/4 ZAIAG TAPE ELS CHU e -
390 S Waa otk Exqe Bl23 I FrasovrKhalas
2 —.
1BOPP AROOB_ Fork F8cye S)a3 inv gsisakeeced S——
[300 VA2\> Dake Mutrey Bla> ZoritSFWATLeasoS—
Zeeo” 2808, Land Roset 713) sarArzsu7eayy48 ——
I9HOLAZ “Toyota Sienna B13\ TTAKZPCANSOSS 139
Wher QOS FoR’ Fise SI31_ IFT KIusse
FLO SB
STK Root Fosn €15D BIB) JETREYS INES 388IS_
BIAK Zorr Docker Challenges-Gl23 “ACS VZPTOWNADoRY _
fare-MAwt Satom Fon Sle \GaatsqeZ15779S~
$oo-y2Qeos Feo Ege BS _IFmyUSSUSKEYIGAS
$00 dood Phnck Cite O193 RHGRS\ess4nxasse
Sco pale Cheoy Eu, JeeBl2B_AGIWTEBKALA BBCI“
49D yQoor Valve So 8531 Yyt CSGIRGAI 7264)
oro
4 ADB —_ Yoacke tkeoed Tle _\WWGCPZ
BREA 0151494
SO y2\0 fout sion Ib TAY
ZFAKPOUALARIIZ
[ROO 4 Aap, Dod ceey G(D BLYPOORETDY30289
500% gem oh Ksion 112 BEAHPOGARRIBSS
S00 £4444 Foser FIED 4N\\ 2PTRAIGLS cagA
2287 Dore Chevy Stoel 1 A |Go” KMELSEZ ABI
EXHIBIT B
TT & bi a Stay DSee
et ¥Bho
faleSoy les3 Apoless
have. Cone ome
5 wi —
© ghz latte oe Wit
for “water CantOV
=<
Dsr Uw anes
A
OZ, 920
V5ov
Fao.
een
Live Pefter Tt
Se (Gad,
Zao) Puy
Ge Xe oraie
eth
Fr
EXHIBIT C
ALLEN LAW, PC
Jonathan H. Allen, Esq. Tel: 413-645-5080 1500 Main Street
Ellie Rosenbaum Allen, Esq Fax: 413-645-5084 Suite 1506
Toll Free: 888-751-8131 PO Box 15567
Judd L. Peskin, Esq. of counsel Mon, - Fri, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Springfield, MA 01115
www.AllenLawMA.com
Writer's email: jon@allestawma.com
February 6, 2024
934 DEMAND LETTER
Robert T. Stone
d/b/a Baron Auto Sales
195 River Street
‘West Springfield, MA 01089
Re: Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc,
Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales
Our File No. 240032
Balance: $296,321.44
Dear Mr. Stone:
Please be advised that I have been retained by Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. (“Mathieu Ford”) to collect
the money you owe for vehicles purchased and for.which no payment has been made. It is my
understanding that, for many years, you had a business relationship with Mathieu Ford whereby
you would purchase vehicles from Mathieu Ford and sell them through Baron Auto Sales.
According to my client’s records, you have purchased twenty-four automobiles from them for
which no payment has been made. The purpose of this letter is to demand the immediate payment
of the balance due and to warn you that failure to do so could have serious legal consequences.
This letter is a demand letter sent to you in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 93A, the Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Statute. Failure to
pay the balance due, make a reasonable settlement offer, or otherwise respond to this letter
within thirty (30) days may result in an award of double or triple damages and reasonable
attorney’s favor against you and in favor of my client.
You have engaged in numerous actions that.may be deemed unfair and deceptive within the
meaning of Chapter 93A. For example, you tendered three (3) checks to my client in August and
September of 2018 totaling $124,200.00 which were drawn on a closed account. On February 28,
2019, you tendered a check to my client in the amount of $16,500.00 that was returned because
you had placed a “stop payment” on the check, The same thing happened with four (4) checks
93A Letter to Robert T. Stone
January 19, 2024
Page 2
tendered on March 13, 2019 totaling $8,500.00. I am further informed that, on more than one
occasion, you simply showed up at my client’s dealership, took Certificates of Title to vehicle(s),
left with the vehicle(s), sold the vehicle(s) on your lot, and never paid Mathieu Ford. Such actions
may have very serious legal consequences.
In total, you have acquired twenty-four (24) vehicles from my client for which you have tendered
no payment whatsoever (or, the payments tendered were either returned for insufficient funds,
drawn on a closed account, or a stop payment order was placed on them). A listing of those vehicles
is enclosed herewith. The principal amount owed for those vehicles is $180,200.00. In addition,
you owe statutory interest from the date of breach of each transaction. Interest is being calculated
at twelve (12%) percent in accordance with M.G.L. c. 231 §6C. The total balance owed as of the
date of this letter is $296,321.44. Demand is hereby made, in accordance with the provisions of
M.G.L. ¢. 93A, for the immediate payment of that sum. Please note, if you fail to tender that sum
or make a reasonable settlement offer within thirty (30) days, we intend to proceed with litigation
through which we will seek multiple damages and attomney’s fees pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A.
If you fail to address this matter in a timely manner, we intend to file suit against you for breach
of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive business practices/93A
(among any other causes of action for which you may be liable). When my client proves that the
above-described actions were unfair and deceptive within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 93A, you
could be found liable for up to three times the actual damages plus reasonable attorneys’ fees
Given the current balance due of $301,643,33, doubling or tripling that amount and adding
attorneys fees could make this problem much worse. If you ignore your responsibilities in
connection with this matter, you could be found liable for in excess of $1,000,000.00 in damages
pursuant to our unfair and deceptive business practices statute, M.G.L. c. 93A.
Please send $296,321.44 payable to Allen Law, P.C. within thirty (30) days from the date
hereof. If you fail to do so, or we are unable to come up with a mutually satisfactory
resolution within that time, I will proceed as outlined above.
I strongly encourage you to give this matter your immediate attention and look forward to hearing
from you soon.
Sincerely yy
Allen, Esq
JHAAL
ce: Client
cao
sie 13 eteroi3
ert Ra os
IRC an es TeNrESoee ey
OFFIC] AR
(Certified Mall Fee
U foe
Is
lekira Services & Fous [ehcek box, add fee es appropriat]
iftetum Receipt frarcoopy)
Coretm Receipt (eoctronic) 8 Postmark
Dicortitod Malt Restitctod Detvery Here
[adut Signature Requtrod
ClAduh Signature Restcted Detvery $
Postage
a fal Postage an
[Sant 76,
Shee Dobie bedi Aha Pac0e... Back
Cit se
4. Ol OCF
Pan) rrr i rae
=
setae en ahead By Sea rier]
i a Complete items 1, 2, and 3;
‘Print your name and address‘on the reverse
‘So that we can return the card to you. an io Ss Licensed in Massachusetts and Connecticut
coeeeee cae ~ ~ pees cee sneeeesnoreenin
33 Mulberry Street T; 413-209-8794
Springfield, MA 01105 F: 413-209-9267
atty kathleen fitz gerald@eracom -Bebruary.29,.2024 w.attykathleenfitzgerald.com
Allen Law, PC
1500 Main Street
PO Box 15567
Springfield, MA 01 115
Attn: Jonathan H. Allen, Esq.
Re: Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. v.
Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales
Your File No. 240032
Dear Mr. Allen:
Lam in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2024, addressed to Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron
Auto Sales, (hereinafter referred interchangeably as “defendant” and/or “Baron.”) To the extent
are
that your letter alleges.that the defendant is in violation of M.G.L. c 93A, those allegations
denied. Without waiving the rights of the’defendant to contest ‘the adequacy of your demand
offer
letter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A in any legal proceedings that may arise in the future, we
the following response.
Your client and Baron had a 30+ year relationship in which their accepted usual and customary
business practice consisted of your client transferring title to thousands of vehicles to Baron and
receiving payment upon the sale of the vehicle thereafter, sometimes weeks or months after. The
accepted practice between them also was that Baron’s check. would be left with your client upon
the title transfer but held and not deposited until notice from Baron that the vehicle was sold.
Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. thereafter breached any alleged agreement when it deposited checks
without prior notice that the vehicle was sold by Baron, which resulted in Baron’s accounts
having insufficient funds, the assessmentof bank pe: nalties and the resulting closure of its
account with the bank. In essence, your client was in the business of financing Bar ‘on Auto Sales
default and
which it did without following appropriate business practices to protect itself from
Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc., through its agents, principal and/or employees, unilatera lly began
was a
depositing checks without obtaining the “go ahead,” if you will, from Baron, this not only
in a
breach of any alleged agreement but also was a deceptive business practice that resulted
myriad of business and legal problems for both parties. Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. business
practice in this regard was a violation of M.G. L. c. 93A, sec. 2 in and of itself.
Moreover, Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. has failed to provide accurate and consistent records with
respect to any alleged agreement and the vehicles and amounts due for any alleged vehicles
which form.the basis of this collection matter. Mathieu Ford-Sales, Inc. has demanded different
amounts on numerous occasions verbally, by texts and by correspondence, and the amount
claimed is contested as is the claim itself.
To the extent your demand letter recites facts not agreed upon, those allegations are denied.
Moreover, all legal conclusions noted in your demand are hereby denied. Should you wish to
provide additional information in support of these claims, Baron will give it full consideration.
The foregoing in no way constitutes nor should it be considered a waiver or relinquishment by
Baron of any and all defenses and rights available to it under applicable laws and statutes. Baron
reserves all of its rights at law. Additionally, the foregoing in no way restricts or limits Baron
from relying upon and asserting other facts and grounds that are or may become available to it.
Very were
>
athleenM. Fitzgerald, Esquire
EXHIBIT E
a
A
ALLEN LA Ww, PC
Jonathan H. Allen, Esq. Tel: 413-645-5080 1500 Main Street
Ellie Rosenbaum Allen, Esq. Fax: 413-645-5084 Suite 1506
Toll Free: 888-751-8131 PO.Box 15567
Judd L. Peskin, Esq, of counsel! Mon. Fri. 9:09 am - 5:00 pm Springfield, MA 01115
www.AllenLawMA.com
Writer's email: jon@allenlawma.com
April 15, 2024
Via Email Only to:
atty. kathleenfitzgerald@gmail.com
Kathleen M. Fitzgerald, Esq.
Law Office of Kathleen M. Fitzgerald, PC
33 Mulberry Street
Springfield, MA 01105
Re: Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc.
Vv. Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales
Our File No. 240032
Dear Attorney Fitzgerald:
I have reviewed your February 29, 2024 letter with Mathieu Ford Sales (“MFS”) and respond as
follows. First, please allow me to make a correction to the amount claimed due. The principal
balance is $162,950, not $180,200 as alleged in my letter of February 6, 2024. The balance had
been $180,200 (per the attached hand-written list of cars appended hereto as Exhibit “A”) but I
have since learned that Mr. Stone tendered thee checks totaling $17,250 (comprised of one check
in the amount of $7,250 dated April %, 2024, and two in the amount of $5,000, dated May 5, 2019
and May 29, 2019 respectively, which reduced the principal balance to $162,950. I do not believe
that Mr. Stone will dispute the principal balance since he signed a Note in that amount on or about
June 5, 2019 (“Note”), shortly after the above payments were credited to the balance. See Exhibit
“B”. The Note contemplated monthly payments of between $1,000 and $5,000 but, according to
MEFS, no such payments were made. Interest is due on the Note at 12% per year pursuant to MGL
c. 231 §6C. With accrued interest, since the June 5, 2019 date of default, the principal and interest
due on the Note is $261,148.58. See Exhibit “C”. That sum does not include any damages under
Chapter 93A, to which my client may be entitled.
As I understand the defense articulated in your letter, you are alleging that, pursuant to the usual
business practice between the parties, Baron Auto Sales would pick up cars and titles, leave a
check to pay for said car, sell it through its lot, and then contact MFS and give them the “go-ahead”
to deposit the previously tendered check — and that sometimes that might be “weeks or months”
after the vehicle was sold. You further allege that my client deviated from that arrangement when
it deposited one or more of the checks. Even if] accept, for the purposes of this letter/settlement
Letter to Attorney Fitagerald
April 15, 2024
Page 2
discussions, that was the agreement between the parties and that my client deviated from that
practice when it tried to deposit the checks — it is far from a complete defense to the balance due.
At best, it would give your client a small offset against the balance due MFS. That said, for the
reasons outlined below, it will not even provide that.
All the checks at issue are dated between August of 2018 and February of 2019. See Exhibit “D”.
The-attempt(s) to deposit one or more checks was in March of 2019. See back of checks. Mr.
Stone executed the Note on or about June 5, 2019. By doing so, the parties entered into a
settlement/accord and satisfaction of a previously disputed/mpaid debt. If forced to litigate this
dispute, I will seek to have any discussion, argument, or evidence on this issue excluded from trial
through either summary judgment or a Motion in Limine. Since this is a commercial dispute that
has already been settled through the execution of a Note, my client stands a strong likelihood of
prevailing at the summary judgment phase.
To the extent that you allege that MFS has failed to provide accurate and consistent records
concerning this debt, I submit that the Note resolves all issues related thereto, at least as of its June
5, 2019 date. If you allege that my client’s computation of the balance due since June 5, 2019 is
inaccurate, your client would bear the burden of proving payment. Please provide me with copies
of the front and back of any and all cancelled checks or other proof of payment/credits due on the
Note since that date.
To the extent that your letter alleges that MFS engaged in any unfair or deceptive business practices
within the meaning of MGL c. 93A, such allegations are hereby denied. Depositing a check weeks
after it was tendered by the drawer could hardly be found to be an unfair and deceptive business
practice. In any event, as outlined above, that issue is resolved by the execution of the Note weeks
later.
I note that your response to my initial 93A Demand Letter did not include an offer of settlement.
The failure to do so can increase the likelihood of an award of multiple damages pursuant to that
statute. My client is eager to either zesolve this in a mutually amicable manner now or proceed
with suit. If your client would like to make an offer of settlement, please do so by the end of this
week.
If we are unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution soon, I intend to file suit to collect the
full $261,148.58 that is currently due and owing under the Note as well as continuing interest,
costs, and multiple damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to MGL c. 93A §11.
T look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincere];
Allen,
JHA/I
Encl.
ce Client
EXHIBIT “A”
basa
1
i
rd
: AAP
j
F 1G, ace
_LwkK- S)s\_
|
BF \ vAayosnteRezev
7500" x! 2052 Foe eo, 24 2EMVKYTAA ICA —
QWUSEO_ Defy Yoder Ram _F18 ICaRRIMTEESAMISIS.
IC Dong, SRL FFSD-a1& [FTO SIRTSEESIOAS
22 ROM Aisa nSeatca 8/4 BUG TAPS EY e
382° Nola Pk Exqe Blas |EmasowiKMlss2—
1B2PP AROOB Fork Lsecue Z)2B iFwvvasiieeteorS —
L300 Ro\o Dake Muirey
Sla> ZOIPHSPU ATLA SIS
Beco” 210% band Sool 713\ sardzesy7eay 248 y—
IGROROMG “Toyota Sienna S13\ STARIKSPMCAISOSS
184
Hyer QO fork Fiso 3131 IFTKiussefOsBhe
STK Root Fost €1SD B15) JETRKIYSQ4EB 38IS
BEAK err Verge Challengs-G]23 “ACBIZEIOWNERG Do _
faccm~v2et Setom ton 2/4 \GeassQeyZrs749s-
$too-y 2005 feat Exe Blas _IFmyUSSUSKEYTCSG
juco x LgCAe Cheody Fu, le BI23__AGWITSBKWIBEETIO __
FID poor Volvo She 331 Yyt OSGI RGR 7264).
ero, AOE yoacke Head ¥ le, LAGCP3 6BAEA 015.194.
Pou ion Ib ZAMKPOH
SO y Lovo ALARIITAZY
1 RLO -¢ Rorg Dod ccey F(B BLYPOORGTDV30280
amotger fol ison IB ZAKLOGARCRIIEA
Ss S_
501 0
\494_ Porrr FSO _ ANN 2ETRRL ych@as
mee Dorie Chevy Sitosrelo TA \GOMkKwEc- SELIG -
EXHIBIT “B”
ax 2h, De Mel
— AVE COW “Ta
— Se
gh
TiWatt ee
ge
OF
or Wer Ons OV
—DSF UW PworlS
i
A
(02. 970
it
Toy. ov”
WL
stiSa fie \Z
mu (Faso) Be,
iYie
Ze
UN. Sthy—
Ny eee
EXHIBIT “C”
ALLEN LAW, PC
1500 Main Street, Suite 1506, PO Box 15567
Springfield, MA 01115
413-645-5080
April 15, 2024
Mathieu Ford
Vv Number: (new account)
Baron Auto Sales Our File # 240032
Payoff as of April 15, 2024
Interest Rate Per Diem
12.00000% 53.572603
ae = =
Gs
Pri al $162,950.00 $162,950.00
=
Ini 98. $98;19
Attorney Fees $0.00
=eah
Cost:
ili:
Totals $162,950.00 $98,198.58 $0.00 $261,148.58
EXHIBIT “D”
masmee
eee cagciny supe scat ae meets sree sehen tt
Pence PGs Tet
1
ie
BARON AUTO SALES 8200
het |
He TOS RIVER STREET B-1822113
WEST SPRINGFIELD, WA 0089 6
te Date
&
Uf fe whet sae £ | sal
uh
{ Pay to the
Ik
nhhi
Order of’)
if
de fbf cay Photo
Safe
i Oepasit®
ads cuba
ig Al
Bh
IB
1
ebsierBank
Hl WebsterOntine.com
i}
i
te For
{x seed PGCdk ® 8200
esa ae ee ret meant Tapa ea mais
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
ATAGL SAVINGS BANK
FOR DEPOSIT ONLY
Me 4#EU FORD a
sup
SEP INC..
oe mph eeeee so on. eerste 20
PaaS
| :
{
t BARON AUTO SALES 8169
195 RIVER STREET
oe ple
BM a
WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01089
Ee ies
i bys b te hi ete i. “i ( by Lf s3it |
Li, oe het
‘Getnds enti
Neer
. WebsterOnline. com
Por
| 2ba 70244 M Bbb4
vara
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
——
ATHOL SAV BANK
Y
MATHIEN FORD ~~
wee
oe Notot Receposi
a
a
i a/cd,
OSED ACCOUNT oe
BARON AUTO SALES
xs ors pilex “ry
8492
sa
This isa LEGAL GOPY of
your check. You can use it f'
105 RIVER STH
‘WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01009 “acd, Grukey ee B
Uf s3h ja.
you would
ths some Wi
ah
use the orig] inal check.
Pay to the
Order o} HA ats Feel Sols
RETURN REASON
CLOSED ACCOUNT
- DB
EE.
ere
we Wel bsterBank
A
i
For.
WebsterOnline
com
LZ Bae
Webb 7023 au = crs
sits as — =
wirenea 702s ut ma age
”
= Se STIS SO a
a
—
Banas
, CLOSED ACCOUNT
* F
ea aes
i
BARON AUTO SALES aig
G@ TOG RIVER STREET
+42 wen
This is a LEGAL COPY ot an q
your check. You can use it | WESY SPRINGFIELD, MA 01689
the same way you would iW
use {he original check.
RETURN REASON ~ D
E Pay to the
H Order of. fa ls, fs 0.
fy
CLOSED ACCOUNT
gE
i
Sree
WebsterOniing.com
iM
BPO ne ee fmt
erent nema
G2aba?Otaw JZ
\"
KS
ed ae ae:
Web hd?Q if
i 3/35/2039
20159
RR -B
RR-
7346/2019
DB
RR- 3D
‘ENDURSE HERE
x
~ PAY TOTHE ORDER OF
Se
iF QNLY
a:
MA
Oars
4
act Ss;
= ING.
wee
DOsoT Lane Tae Loe
on on 8 ——
>
~~“ 3
os H- - as
%S2ORF
boaggeee 4A 30
--
-
- -
a
— yy
OP P
SEL SO
bt "LB 1134
BARON AUTO SALES
theyi
This is a LEGAL COPY of
your check. You can use it 495 RIVER STRCET
the same wa
f Wy would
use the original check.
WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01089
mete Lh
LZ
PAY THE
BROER OF.
RETURN REASON ~ C
STOP PAYMENT
“intecberk
MEMO, arene prereset
|
eb
hh 703 oy W ObMGE
ba TOI ABH a:
Wek bids im
3/15/2014
RR-C
15/2034
RR-C
3/46/2019
RR-C€
6/2019
RR-C¢
© enodase ene
PAY TO THE ORDEROF
ATHO AN
see OR DEPOSTT ONIN.50
Oi ATHIEU
rucey
Gare
FORD SALES,
—
4
re
C.
aT
DO NOT WARE SY THIS UE
— miv Lor - mee
wy
eso
OF.
a Q "S 2sen04
sous S
dis yay. / 2005
ARN a!
oOoe
1
a
oan
koe w
we
pm
ae
pee t .
{¢ FCOERAL RELA Car Ror «_aynee od
wre nee +
a
—— TOP PaYVENT - ha sei
sass
51-703 ett 1187
‘This is a LEGAL COPY of BARON AUTO SALES
your check, You can use it
the same way you would
use {he original check,
195 AINGA STREET
WEST SPRINGFIELD, S44 0f099 ow Felf
RETURN REASON ~ C
PAY IO HE
ORDER OF othiee fel Salt $ (3a
sToP PAYNENT
edbank 4
von pelt De Tee [Buh vi
RANT 3IEh PQbba? Hl
wine ii
ona
03/15/2015
RR-C
f20R9
RR-&
4148/2049
RR-€
3/18/2024
RR-¢
© exoonst Here
ATHOL Sap ORDEROF
} RK
MATH EUFOR . “LY. <4 3FE CLP OSIT
=
tor ES,
—— INC,
20 NOT WPI Teo THIS LEE
- Fhe - - an -
os
%,
% %
%
7. Fa.
¥. ~
--- =
Sarr =
cs
“Ge
es:
jdt
a7058b< BB/LY/EOLY
BEALAGATY CaS
=
te
ae
t- —F
fr.
aoe
Fxzes We 2A S BOMMD + nm fte od
eteret ee
og Nok Redesasit
ma OP PAYMENT
a
10
ss a
sL-7egiatt, 1188 Hl
This is a LEGAL COPY of
Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT HAMPDEN, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT 50 State Street, Springfield, MA 01103 CIVIL ACTIONNO2G 2 47 ) MATHIEU FORD SALES, INC., ) Plaintiff ) Vv. COMPLAINT MPDEN COUNTY ROBERT J. STONE a/k/a ROBERT STONE ) ‘SUPERIOR COURT d/b/a BARON AUTO SALES, Defendant MAY’ 07 2024 PARTIES CLERK OF COURTS The Plaintiff, Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation duly organized by law, with a principal place of business at 664 Spring Street, Winchendon, Worcester County, Massachusetts 02726. The Defendant, Robert J. Stone a/k/a Robert Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales, is an individual who resides at 75 Havenurst Road, West Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts 01089. FACTS The Plaintiff operates a Ford automobile dealership in Winchendon, Massachusetts. The Defendant operates a used car dealership in West Springfield, Massachusetts. Over the years, the Plaintiff sold many used cars to the Defendant. The Defendant sold the vehicles purchased from the Plaintiff at his used car dealership. The Defendant acquired twenty-four (24) vehicles (“Vehicles”) from the Plaintiff. The agreed price for the Vehicles was $180,200.00. A true and accurate copy of list of the Vehicles is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 10. The Defendant did not pay for the Vehicles within the time-frame agreed upon between the parties. 11 The Plaintiff made demand upon the Defendant to pay for the Vehicles. 12 The Defendant made three (3) payments to the Plaintiff between April 9, 2019 and May 29, 2019 in the total amount of $17,250.00. 13 The above referenced payments reduced the principal balance owed from $180,200.00 to $162,950.00. 14. To resolve the dispute between them over the purchase of the above Vehicles, the parties agreed that the Defendant would execute a Note to the Plaintiff. 15 On or about June 5, 2019, the Defendant executed a Note in the principal amount of $162,950.00 in connection with the purchase of the above referenced Vehicles. 16. A true copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 17. In the Note, Defendant agreed to make monthly payments between $1,000.00 and $5,000.00. 18. The Defendant failed to make payment as agreed. 19. On or about February 6, 2024, the Plaintiff sent a 93A Demand Letter (“93A Demand Letter’’) to the Defendant. 20 A true copy of the 93A Demand Letter is appended hereto as Exhibit “C”. 21 The Defendant, through counsel, responded to the 93A Demand Letter by letter. 22 A true copy of the Defendant’s response to the 93A Demand Letter (“Response to 93A Demand”) is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 23 The Defendant did not make a settlement offer in Response to 93A Demand. 24. The Plaintiff sent a second letter, this time to the Defendant’s attorney, to respond to the Response to 93A on or about April 15, 2024 (“April 15 Letter”). 25 A true copy of the April 15 Letter is appended hereto as Exhibit “E”. 26 To-date, neither the Defendant nor his attorney have responded to the April 15 Letter. COUNTI Breach of Promissory Note 27 The Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 3 28 The Defendant executed a Note in favor of the Plaintiff in which it was agreed that $162,950.00 would be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. See Exhibit “B”. 29 The Defendant breached the Note by failing to make payments in accordance with the terms of the Note. 30 As aresult of the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 ($162,950.00) DOLLARS. 31 In addition to the above sum, the Defendant owes statutory interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum in accordance with MGL c. 231 §6C. 32, The Defendant now owes the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE AND 24/100 ($259,059.24) DOLLARS, which includes interest at the statutory rate of 12% calculated from June 5, 2019, default date, through the date of the filing of the Complaint in the amount of NINETY-SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINE AND 24/100 ($96,109.24) DOLLARS. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands a money judgment against the Defendant, plus all applicable interest at the statutory rate of 12%, costs and whatever other relief that this Court deems fair and just. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT. 33 The Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 34, The Defendant has received approximately twenty-four (24) vehicles (“Vehicles”) from the Plaintiff for which he has not paid or paid in full. 35 The Defendant retained said Vehicles, or the proceeds received from the Defendant’s subsequent sale of said Vehicles. 36. The Plaintiff conferred a valuable benefit upon the Defendant. 37. The Defendant has retained property or money, to which he is not entitled, and which in equity and good conscience should be returned to the Plaintiff. 38 The Defendant reasonably would have expected to compensate the Plaintiff for the benefit conferred upon him. 39 The Defendant has improperly retained ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 ($162,950.00) DOLLARS of the Plaintiff's money. 40. The Defendant now owes the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE AND 24/100 ($259,059.24) DOLLARS, which includes interest at the statutory rate of 12% calculated from June 5, 2019, default date, through the date of the filing of the Complaint in the amount of NINETY-SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINE AND 24/100 ($96,109.24) DOLLARS. 5 COUNT I CONVERSION 41 The Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 42 The Defendant has intentionally and wrongfully exercised acts of ownership, control or dominion over the property of the Plaintiff. 43 The Defendant has no right of possession to the property it received from the Plaintiff. 44 The Defendant has improperly exercised acts of ownership, control or dominion over the Vehicles acquired from the Plaintiff and/or the proceeds realized from the sale of same. 45 The Defendant has improperly retained property or proceeds with a value of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 ($162,950.00) DOLLARS, not including intertest, costs, attorney’s fees or multiple damages pursuant to MGL. c. 93A. 46. The Defendant now owes the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND FIFTY-NINE AND 24/100 ($259,059.24) DOLLARS, which includes interest at the statutory rate of 12% calculated from June 5, 2019, default date, through the date of the filing of the Complaint in the amount of NINETY-SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINE AND 24/100 ($96,109.24) DOLLARS. COUNT IV UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (93A) 6 47. The Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each of the allegations made in Paragraphs | through 45 above. 48 Atall times relevant hereto, the Defendant has been engaged in a trade or commerce within the meaning of MGL c. 93A §11. 49 The Defendant acquired vehicles from the Plaintiff for which he has not paid the Plaintiff. 50. The Defendant has sold vehicles acquired from the Plaintiff to third parties in exchange for money. 31 The Defendant has failed to apply the proceeds from the sale of vehicles acquired from the Plaintiff to the monies he owes the Plaintiff. 52 The acts and omissions of the Defendant referenced above were willful and intentional. 53 The acts and omissions of the Defendant referenced above were unfair and deceptive within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 93A §11. 54. As aresult of the above act and omissions, the Plaintiff has been damaged. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment enter against the Defendant on Counts I through IV, plus continuing interest and costs. The Plaintiff also respectfully requests that it be awarded treble damages and attorneys fees pursuant to MGL. c. 93A§11 and such other relief as this Court deems fair and just. The Plaintiff, Mai Ford Sales, Inc., by its Counsel Joy H. Allen, Esq. BBO # 638033 . Rosenbaum, Esq. BBO#6600715 0 Main Street, Suite 1506 ‘© Box 15567 Springfield, MA 01115 Tel (413) 645-5080 Fax (413) 645-5084 Email: jon@allenlawma.com Date: May ; 2024 EXHIBIT A bras |i i| F 1G20° | OQ? _ VwReK 3/8) SF\vAayesHieRere 1500" of ed? Feel eche BIT 2FMDK4 TCA TEARS ‘QUEseo Ref} Dodee Rasen 21% CARRIATEEG MATIC 47080 | Done, ORR FFSD°A 1b IF Tio BI RTBEESISAR- W220 ROIY Ain Seasen 8/4 ZAIAG TAPE ELS CHU e - 390 S Waa otk Exqe Bl23 I FrasovrKhalas 2 —. 1BOPP AROOB_ Fork F8cye S)a3 inv gsisakeeced S—— [300 VA2\> Dake Mutrey Bla> ZoritSFWATLeasoS— Zeeo” 2808, Land Roset 713) sarArzsu7eayy48 —— I9HOLAZ “Toyota Sienna B13\ TTAKZPCANSOSS 139 Wher QOS FoR’ Fise SI31_ IFT KIusse FLO SB STK Root Fosn €15D BIB) JETREYS INES 388IS_ BIAK Zorr Docker Challenges-Gl23 “ACS VZPTOWNADoRY _ fare-MAwt Satom Fon Sle \GaatsqeZ15779S~ $oo-y2Qeos Feo Ege BS _IFmyUSSUSKEYIGAS $00 dood Phnck Cite O193 RHGRS\ess4nxasse Sco pale Cheoy Eu, JeeBl2B_AGIWTEBKALA BBCI“ 49D yQoor Valve So 8531 Yyt CSGIRGAI 7264) oro 4 ADB —_ Yoacke tkeoed Tle _\WWGCPZ BREA 0151494 SO y2\0 fout sion Ib TAY ZFAKPOUALARIIZ [ROO 4 Aap, Dod ceey G(D BLYPOORETDY30289 500% gem oh Ksion 112 BEAHPOGARRIBSS S00 £4444 Foser FIED 4N\\ 2PTRAIGLS cagA 2287 Dore Chevy Stoel 1 A |Go” KMELSEZ ABI EXHIBIT B TT & bi a Stay DSee et ¥Bho faleSoy les3 Apoless have. Cone ome 5 wi — © ghz latte oe Wit for “water CantOV =< Dsr Uw anes A OZ, 920 V5ov Fao. een Live Pefter Tt Se (Gad, Zao) Puy Ge Xe oraie eth Fr EXHIBIT C ALLEN LAW, PC Jonathan H. Allen, Esq. Tel: 413-645-5080 1500 Main Street Ellie Rosenbaum Allen, Esq Fax: 413-645-5084 Suite 1506 Toll Free: 888-751-8131 PO Box 15567 Judd L. Peskin, Esq. of counsel Mon, - Fri, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Springfield, MA 01115 www.AllenLawMA.com Writer's email: jon@allestawma.com February 6, 2024 934 DEMAND LETTER Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales 195 River Street ‘West Springfield, MA 01089 Re: Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc, Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales Our File No. 240032 Balance: $296,321.44 Dear Mr. Stone: Please be advised that I have been retained by Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. (“Mathieu Ford”) to collect the money you owe for vehicles purchased and for.which no payment has been made. It is my understanding that, for many years, you had a business relationship with Mathieu Ford whereby you would purchase vehicles from Mathieu Ford and sell them through Baron Auto Sales. According to my client’s records, you have purchased twenty-four automobiles from them for which no payment has been made. The purpose of this letter is to demand the immediate payment of the balance due and to warn you that failure to do so could have serious legal consequences. This letter is a demand letter sent to you in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, the Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Statute. Failure to pay the balance due, make a reasonable settlement offer, or otherwise respond to this letter within thirty (30) days may result in an award of double or triple damages and reasonable attorney’s favor against you and in favor of my client. You have engaged in numerous actions that.may be deemed unfair and deceptive within the meaning of Chapter 93A. For example, you tendered three (3) checks to my client in August and September of 2018 totaling $124,200.00 which were drawn on a closed account. On February 28, 2019, you tendered a check to my client in the amount of $16,500.00 that was returned because you had placed a “stop payment” on the check, The same thing happened with four (4) checks 93A Letter to Robert T. Stone January 19, 2024 Page 2 tendered on March 13, 2019 totaling $8,500.00. I am further informed that, on more than one occasion, you simply showed up at my client’s dealership, took Certificates of Title to vehicle(s), left with the vehicle(s), sold the vehicle(s) on your lot, and never paid Mathieu Ford. Such actions may have very serious legal consequences. In total, you have acquired twenty-four (24) vehicles from my client for which you have tendered no payment whatsoever (or, the payments tendered were either returned for insufficient funds, drawn on a closed account, or a stop payment order was placed on them). A listing of those vehicles is enclosed herewith. The principal amount owed for those vehicles is $180,200.00. In addition, you owe statutory interest from the date of breach of each transaction. Interest is being calculated at twelve (12%) percent in accordance with M.G.L. c. 231 §6C. The total balance owed as of the date of this letter is $296,321.44. Demand is hereby made, in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. ¢. 93A, for the immediate payment of that sum. Please note, if you fail to tender that sum or make a reasonable settlement offer within thirty (30) days, we intend to proceed with litigation through which we will seek multiple damages and attomney’s fees pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A. If you fail to address this matter in a timely manner, we intend to file suit against you for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive business practices/93A (among any other causes of action for which you may be liable). When my client proves that the above-described actions were unfair and deceptive within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 93A, you could be found liable for up to three times the actual damages plus reasonable attorneys’ fees Given the current balance due of $301,643,33, doubling or tripling that amount and adding attorneys fees could make this problem much worse. If you ignore your responsibilities in connection with this matter, you could be found liable for in excess of $1,000,000.00 in damages pursuant to our unfair and deceptive business practices statute, M.G.L. c. 93A. Please send $296,321.44 payable to Allen Law, P.C. within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. If you fail to do so, or we are unable to come up with a mutually satisfactory resolution within that time, I will proceed as outlined above. I strongly encourage you to give this matter your immediate attention and look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely yy Allen, Esq JHAAL ce: Client cao sie 13 eteroi3 ert Ra os IRC an es TeNrESoee ey OFFIC] AR (Certified Mall Fee U foe Is lekira Services & Fous [ehcek box, add fee es appropriat] iftetum Receipt frarcoopy) Coretm Receipt (eoctronic) 8 Postmark Dicortitod Malt Restitctod Detvery Here [adut Signature Requtrod ClAduh Signature Restcted Detvery $ Postage a fal Postage an [Sant 76, Shee Dobie bedi Aha Pac0e... Back Cit se 4. Ol OCF Pan) rrr i rae = setae en ahead By Sea rier] i a Complete items 1, 2, and 3; ‘Print your name and address‘on the reverse ‘So that we can return the card to you. an io Ss Licensed in Massachusetts and Connecticut coeeeee cae ~ ~ pees cee sneeeesnoreenin 33 Mulberry Street T; 413-209-8794 Springfield, MA 01105 F: 413-209-9267 atty kathleen fitz gerald@eracom -Bebruary.29,.2024 w.attykathleenfitzgerald.com Allen Law, PC 1500 Main Street PO Box 15567 Springfield, MA 01 115 Attn: Jonathan H. Allen, Esq. Re: Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. v. Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales Your File No. 240032 Dear Mr. Allen: Lam in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2024, addressed to Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales, (hereinafter referred interchangeably as “defendant” and/or “Baron.”) To the extent are that your letter alleges.that the defendant is in violation of M.G.L. c 93A, those allegations denied. Without waiving the rights of the’defendant to contest ‘the adequacy of your demand offer letter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A in any legal proceedings that may arise in the future, we the following response. Your client and Baron had a 30+ year relationship in which their accepted usual and customary business practice consisted of your client transferring title to thousands of vehicles to Baron and receiving payment upon the sale of the vehicle thereafter, sometimes weeks or months after. The accepted practice between them also was that Baron’s check. would be left with your client upon the title transfer but held and not deposited until notice from Baron that the vehicle was sold. Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. thereafter breached any alleged agreement when it deposited checks without prior notice that the vehicle was sold by Baron, which resulted in Baron’s accounts having insufficient funds, the assessmentof bank pe: nalties and the resulting closure of its account with the bank. In essence, your client was in the business of financing Bar ‘on Auto Sales default and which it did without following appropriate business practices to protect itself from Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc., through its agents, principal and/or employees, unilatera lly began was a depositing checks without obtaining the “go ahead,” if you will, from Baron, this not only in a breach of any alleged agreement but also was a deceptive business practice that resulted myriad of business and legal problems for both parties. Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. business practice in this regard was a violation of M.G. L. c. 93A, sec. 2 in and of itself. Moreover, Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. has failed to provide accurate and consistent records with respect to any alleged agreement and the vehicles and amounts due for any alleged vehicles which form.the basis of this collection matter. Mathieu Ford-Sales, Inc. has demanded different amounts on numerous occasions verbally, by texts and by correspondence, and the amount claimed is contested as is the claim itself. To the extent your demand letter recites facts not agreed upon, those allegations are denied. Moreover, all legal conclusions noted in your demand are hereby denied. Should you wish to provide additional information in support of these claims, Baron will give it full consideration. The foregoing in no way constitutes nor should it be considered a waiver or relinquishment by Baron of any and all defenses and rights available to it under applicable laws and statutes. Baron reserves all of its rights at law. Additionally, the foregoing in no way restricts or limits Baron from relying upon and asserting other facts and grounds that are or may become available to it. Very were > athleenM. Fitzgerald, Esquire EXHIBIT E a A ALLEN LA Ww, PC Jonathan H. Allen, Esq. Tel: 413-645-5080 1500 Main Street Ellie Rosenbaum Allen, Esq. Fax: 413-645-5084 Suite 1506 Toll Free: 888-751-8131 PO.Box 15567 Judd L. Peskin, Esq, of counsel! Mon. Fri. 9:09 am - 5:00 pm Springfield, MA 01115 www.AllenLawMA.com Writer's email: jon@allenlawma.com April 15, 2024 Via Email Only to: atty. kathleenfitzgerald@gmail.com Kathleen M. Fitzgerald, Esq. Law Office of Kathleen M. Fitzgerald, PC 33 Mulberry Street Springfield, MA 01105 Re: Mathieu Ford Sales, Inc. Vv. Robert T. Stone d/b/a Baron Auto Sales Our File No. 240032 Dear Attorney Fitzgerald: I have reviewed your February 29, 2024 letter with Mathieu Ford Sales (“MFS”) and respond as follows. First, please allow me to make a correction to the amount claimed due. The principal balance is $162,950, not $180,200 as alleged in my letter of February 6, 2024. The balance had been $180,200 (per the attached hand-written list of cars appended hereto as Exhibit “A”) but I have since learned that Mr. Stone tendered thee checks totaling $17,250 (comprised of one check in the amount of $7,250 dated April %, 2024, and two in the amount of $5,000, dated May 5, 2019 and May 29, 2019 respectively, which reduced the principal balance to $162,950. I do not believe that Mr. Stone will dispute the principal balance since he signed a Note in that amount on or about June 5, 2019 (“Note”), shortly after the above payments were credited to the balance. See Exhibit “B”. The Note contemplated monthly payments of between $1,000 and $5,000 but, according to MEFS, no such payments were made. Interest is due on the Note at 12% per year pursuant to MGL c. 231 §6C. With accrued interest, since the June 5, 2019 date of default, the principal and interest due on the Note is $261,148.58. See Exhibit “C”. That sum does not include any damages under Chapter 93A, to which my client may be entitled. As I understand the defense articulated in your letter, you are alleging that, pursuant to the usual business practice between the parties, Baron Auto Sales would pick up cars and titles, leave a check to pay for said car, sell it through its lot, and then contact MFS and give them the “go-ahead” to deposit the previously tendered check — and that sometimes that might be “weeks or months” after the vehicle was sold. You further allege that my client deviated from that arrangement when it deposited one or more of the checks. Even if] accept, for the purposes of this letter/settlement Letter to Attorney Fitagerald April 15, 2024 Page 2 discussions, that was the agreement between the parties and that my client deviated from that practice when it tried to deposit the checks — it is far from a complete defense to the balance due. At best, it would give your client a small offset against the balance due MFS. That said, for the reasons outlined below, it will not even provide that. All the checks at issue are dated between August of 2018 and February of 2019. See Exhibit “D”. The-attempt(s) to deposit one or more checks was in March of 2019. See back of checks. Mr. Stone executed the Note on or about June 5, 2019. By doing so, the parties entered into a settlement/accord and satisfaction of a previously disputed/mpaid debt. If forced to litigate this dispute, I will seek to have any discussion, argument, or evidence on this issue excluded from trial through either summary judgment or a Motion in Limine. Since this is a commercial dispute that has already been settled through the execution of a Note, my client stands a strong likelihood of prevailing at the summary judgment phase. To the extent that you allege that MFS has failed to provide accurate and consistent records concerning this debt, I submit that the Note resolves all issues related thereto, at least as of its June 5, 2019 date. If you allege that my client’s computation of the balance due since June 5, 2019 is inaccurate, your client would bear the burden of proving payment. Please provide me with copies of the front and back of any and all cancelled checks or other proof of payment/credits due on the Note since that date. To the extent that your letter alleges that MFS engaged in any unfair or deceptive business practices within the meaning of MGL c. 93A, such allegations are hereby denied. Depositing a check weeks after it was tendered by the drawer could hardly be found to be an unfair and deceptive business practice. In any event, as outlined above, that issue is resolved by the execution of the Note weeks later. I note that your response to my initial 93A Demand Letter did not include an offer of settlement. The failure to do so can increase the likelihood of an award of multiple damages pursuant to that statute. My client is eager to either zesolve this in a mutually amicable manner now or proceed with suit. If your client would like to make an offer of settlement, please do so by the end of this week. If we are unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution soon, I intend to file suit to collect the full $261,148.58 that is currently due and owing under the Note as well as continuing interest, costs, and multiple damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to MGL c. 93A §11. T look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincere]; Allen, JHA/I Encl. ce Client EXHIBIT “A” basa 1 i rd : AAP j F 1G, ace _LwkK- S)s\_ | BF \ vAayosnteRezev 7500" x! 2052 Foe eo, 24 2EMVKYTAA ICA — QWUSEO_ Defy Yoder Ram _F18 ICaRRIMTEESAMISIS. IC Dong, SRL FFSD-a1& [FTO SIRTSEESIOAS 22 ROM Aisa nSeatca 8/4 BUG TAPS EY e 382° Nola Pk Exqe Blas |EmasowiKMlss2— 1B2PP AROOB Fork Lsecue Z)2B iFwvvasiieeteorS — L300 Ro\o Dake Muirey Sla> ZOIPHSPU ATLA SIS Beco” 210% band Sool 713\ sardzesy7eay 248 y— IGROROMG “Toyota Sienna S13\ STARIKSPMCAISOSS 184 Hyer QO fork Fiso 3131 IFTKiussefOsBhe STK Root Fost €1SD B15) JETRKIYSQ4EB 38IS BEAK err Verge Challengs-G]23 “ACBIZEIOWNERG Do _ faccm~v2et Setom ton 2/4 \GeassQeyZrs749s- $too-y 2005 feat Exe Blas _IFmyUSSUSKEYTCSG juco x LgCAe Cheody Fu, le BI23__AGWITSBKWIBEETIO __ FID poor Volvo She 331 Yyt OSGI RGR 7264). ero, AOE yoacke Head ¥ le, LAGCP3 6BAEA 015.194. Pou ion Ib ZAMKPOH SO y Lovo ALARIITAZY 1 RLO -¢ Rorg Dod ccey F(B BLYPOORGTDV30280 amotger fol ison IB ZAKLOGARCRIIEA Ss S_ 501 0 \494_ Porrr FSO _ ANN 2ETRRL ych@as mee Dorie Chevy Sitosrelo TA \GOMkKwEc- SELIG - EXHIBIT “B” ax 2h, De Mel — AVE COW “Ta — Se gh TiWatt ee ge OF or Wer Ons OV —DSF UW PworlS i A (02. 970 it Toy. ov” WL stiSa fie \Z mu (Faso) Be, iYie Ze UN. Sthy— Ny eee EXHIBIT “C” ALLEN LAW, PC 1500 Main Street, Suite 1506, PO Box 15567 Springfield, MA 01115 413-645-5080 April 15, 2024 Mathieu Ford Vv Number: (new account) Baron Auto Sales Our File # 240032 Payoff as of April 15, 2024 Interest Rate Per Diem 12.00000% 53.572603 ae = = Gs Pri al $162,950.00 $162,950.00 = Ini 98. $98;19 Attorney Fees $0.00 =eah Cost: ili: Totals $162,950.00 $98,198.58 $0.00 $261,148.58 EXHIBIT “D” masmee eee cagciny supe scat ae meets sree sehen tt Pence PGs Tet 1 ie BARON AUTO SALES 8200 het | He TOS RIVER STREET B-1822113 WEST SPRINGFIELD, WA 0089 6 te Date & Uf fe whet sae £ | sal uh { Pay to the Ik nhhi Order of’) if de fbf cay Photo Safe i Oepasit® ads cuba ig Al Bh IB 1 ebsierBank Hl WebsterOntine.com i} i te For {x seed PGCdk ® 8200 esa ae ee ret meant Tapa ea mais PAY TO THE ORDER OF ATAGL SAVINGS BANK FOR DEPOSIT ONLY Me 4#EU FORD a sup SEP INC.. oe mph eeeee so on. eerste 20 PaaS | : { t BARON AUTO SALES 8169 195 RIVER STREET oe ple BM a WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01089 Ee ies i bys b te hi ete i. “i ( by Lf s3it | Li, oe het ‘Getnds enti Neer . WebsterOnline. com Por | 2ba 70244 M Bbb4 vara PAY TO THE ORDER OF —— ATHOL SAV BANK Y MATHIEN FORD ~~ wee oe Notot Receposi a a i a/cd, OSED ACCOUNT oe BARON AUTO SALES xs ors pilex “ry 8492 sa This isa LEGAL GOPY of your check. You can use it f' 105 RIVER STH ‘WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01009 “acd, Grukey ee B Uf s3h ja. you would ths some Wi ah use the orig] inal check. Pay to the Order o} HA ats Feel Sols RETURN REASON CLOSED ACCOUNT - DB EE. ere we Wel bsterBank A i For. WebsterOnline com LZ Bae Webb 7023 au = crs sits as — = wirenea 702s ut ma age ” = Se STIS SO a a — Banas , CLOSED ACCOUNT * F ea aes i BARON AUTO SALES aig G@ TOG RIVER STREET +42 wen This is a LEGAL COPY ot an q your check. You can use it | WESY SPRINGFIELD, MA 01689 the same way you would iW use {he original check. RETURN REASON ~ D E Pay to the H Order of. fa ls, fs 0. fy CLOSED ACCOUNT gE i Sree WebsterOniing.com iM BPO ne ee fmt erent nema G2aba?Otaw JZ \" KS ed ae ae: Web hd?Q if i 3/35/2039 20159 RR -B RR- 7346/2019 DB RR- 3D ‘ENDURSE HERE x ~ PAY TOTHE ORDER OF Se iF QNLY a: MA Oars 4 act Ss; = ING. wee DOsoT Lane Tae Loe on on 8 —— > ~~“ 3 os H- - as %S2ORF boaggeee 4A 30 -- - - - a — yy OP P SEL SO bt "LB 1134 BARON AUTO SALES theyi This is a LEGAL COPY of your check. You can use it 495 RIVER STRCET the same wa f Wy would use the original check. WEST SPRINGFIELD, MA 01089 mete Lh LZ PAY THE BROER OF. RETURN REASON ~ C STOP PAYMENT “intecberk MEMO, arene prereset | eb hh 703 oy W ObMGE ba TOI ABH a: Wek bids im 3/15/2014 RR-C 15/2034 RR-C 3/46/2019 RR-C€ 6/2019 RR-C¢ © enodase ene PAY TO THE ORDEROF ATHO AN see OR DEPOSTT ONIN.50 Oi ATHIEU rucey Gare FORD SALES, — 4 re C. aT DO NOT WARE SY THIS UE — miv Lor - mee wy eso OF. a Q "S 2sen04 sous S dis yay. / 2005 ARN a! oOoe 1 a oan koe w we pm ae pee t . {¢ FCOERAL RELA Car Ror «_aynee od wre nee + a —— TOP PaYVENT - ha sei sass 51-703 ett 1187 ‘This is a LEGAL COPY of BARON AUTO SALES your check, You can use it the same way you would use {he original check, 195 AINGA STREET WEST SPRINGFIELD, S44 0f099 ow Felf RETURN REASON ~ C PAY IO HE ORDER OF othiee fel Salt $ (3a sToP PAYNENT edbank 4 von pelt De Tee [Buh vi RANT 3IEh PQbba? Hl wine ii ona 03/15/2015 RR-C f20R9 RR-& 4148/2049 RR-€ 3/18/2024 RR-¢ © exoonst Here ATHOL Sap ORDEROF } RK MATH EUFOR . “LY. <4 3FE CLP OSIT = tor ES, —— INC, 20 NOT WPI Teo THIS LEE - Fhe - - an - os %, % % % 7. Fa. ¥. ~ --- = Sarr = cs “Ge es: jdt a7058b< BB/LY/EOLY BEALAGATY CaS = te ae t- —F fr. aoe Fxzes We 2A S BOMMD + nm fte od eteret ee og Nok Redesasit ma OP PAYMENT a 10 ss a sL-7egiatt, 1188 Hl This is a LEGAL COPY of