Introduction
The issues raised by the facts are, first, whether Bedford can satisfy all the necessary features of a cause of action in intentional interference with contract or business relations against Lowell Litigant. The second issue is whether the facts can also support a suit against his wife, Betty, for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. These two factors are the primary determinants of how a court is likely to rule on the matter.
Rule
Intentional Interference with Business Relations
The Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Kurker v Hill (1998), articulated the four constitutive elements of a case for the intentional meddling with contractual or beneficial commercial relationships. First, an economically valuable commercial association between the petitioner and a third party must be present. Second, the defendant or respondent must know about this relationship, and, third, he must interfere with it through inappropriate means or motive. Finally, a direct nexus between the plaintiff’s loss of gain and the defendant’s behavior must exist. Markedly, these components are cumulative and, thus, for a feasible suit to arise the presence of all four is mandatory.
A contract or some other viable commercial association between the applicant and another individual or entity often suffices to establish the first element. The nature of the contract does not matter as long as it is enforceable. Similarly, it is not imperative that business relations be formalized because even potential relations can suffice. Concerning the second ingredient, the applicant must demonstrate that the respondent possessed an actual awareness of the contractual or business relationship that is the subject of unwarranted intrusion. The defendant cannot have intentionally interfered with a contract or business relationship he does not know about.
The third element is that the defendant’s interference must be through either improper motive or methods. Notably, the court in Kurker v Hill (1998) was categorical that the claimant needs to establish either improper motive or inappropriate means to have a viable claim. Therefore, a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate both to have a successful claim. Finally, there must be a direct causative link between the plaintiff’s loss of advantage and the defendant’s interference. Thus, the defendant’s behavior must be the direct cause of any detriment that befalls the claimant.
Breach of Contract and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The court in Kasparian v Santinello (2006), relying on Krapf v Krapf (2003), articulated that a separation agreement renders the respective parties as fiduciaries, to each other. Subsequently, both are expected to observe the greatest measure of good faith and fairness in the dispensation of any contractual and fiduciary obligations due to each other. Based on this rule, therefore, it is possible for former spouses undergoing a divorce or separation to breach both contractual and fiduciary obligations through their actions and decisions related to joint business ventures.
Analysis
Intentional Interference with Business Relations
Bedford’s claim for intentional interference with contractual or business relations would be viable under the circumstances as all four constitutive elements are apparent from the facts. First, both a contractual and a beneficial business relationship between Bedford and Betty, his wife, exist. The fact pattern reveals that Betty had a role as property manager for several pieces of property owned by Bedford. Accordingly, it is indisputable that an employment contract, with Bedford as an employer and Betty as an employee, was present. This employer-employee relationship constitutes a contract susceptible to tortious interference. Even if there was no contract, the real estate holdings and other business ventures that caused them emotional pressure constituted advantageous business relations, thus, satisfying the first requirement.
The second element, the respondent’s real knowledge of the relationship, is also met in the circumstances. The facts establish that Bedford share information with Lowell when they met in the summer of 2019 at Quincy College. The former, based on their casual friendship and in confidence, told the latter about the emotional pressure plaguing his marriage because of their commercial interests. Hence, the defendant had actual knowledge of the commercial relationship between Bedford and Betty because the former had told him about it.
The third requirement is for the defendant, through improper means or motive, must interfere with that business relationship. Notably, establishing either improper means or bad motives is enough to support the claim. Improper means is discernable from the fact that Lowell took advantage of the information shared with him by Bedford in confidence, knowledge of the marital pressures he was experiencing with Betty, to lure how into divorcing her husband.
The final prerequisite is a direct causal link between the defendant’s actions and the consequent loss to the plaintiff. On the facts, Betty abandoned all her responsibilities as the property manager. Additionally, she left Bedford to deal with all the debt, lawsuits, and losses associated with the property. It is unarguable that all these events befell Bedford because of Lowell’s inducement and persuasion to divorce her husband. Bedford’s predicament is primarily because of Lowell’s influence and, thus, establishes the necessary causal link.
Breach of Contract and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
As noted, Betty abandoned all her responsibilities as the property manager and she left Bedford to deal with all the debt, lawsuits, and losses associated with their real estate holdings and other business ventures. Their divorce, however, does not preclude her from discharging her contractual and fiduciary obligations towards their joint ventures. In fact, because of the divorce, she became a fiduciary to Bedford. Consequently, failure to discharge her duties as a property manager constitutes a breach of the employment contract while abandoning all the other responsibilities she had during the marriage violates her fiduciary obligations. Through her conduct, Betty does not adhere to the dictates of good faith and fairness, therefore, culminating in her culpability in contract and trust.
Conclusion
All necessary ingredients to support a claim by Bedford against Litigant are present. Both contractual and advantageous business relations existed, Bedford had told Lowell of the commercial relationship, who relied on the information given to him in confidence to instigate the divorce and Betty’s abandonment of all her responsibilities, and Bedford has suffered both monetary and personal loss as a result. Additionally, Betty’s conduct also gives rise to a potential claim of breach of contract and fiduciary obligations. Accordingly, the likelihood that the court would rule in Bedford’s favor in both instances is high.
References
Kasparian v. Santinello, WL 3292812 Mass.Super. (2006).
Krapf v. Krapf, 439 Mass. 97 (2003).
Kurker v. Hill, 44 Mass.App.Ct. 184 (1998).