By Beth David, Editor
Michael P. Ristuccia, 75, a former member of the Fairhaven Board of Health and Board of Public Works, both elected positions, lost a lawsuit in Superior Court accusing him of shoddy work. The court awarded $424,69.98 to Megan Bruce of Dogwood Street, West Island, Fairhaven, for an addition to her house that Mr. Ristuccia built, but is unusable due to its poor construction.
The word “egregious” appeared more than once in court documents describing the violations.
In the default judgment, Justice Thomas F. McGuire, Jr. writes: “While these allegations of fact are deemed admitted due to the defendant’s default…they are also well-established by the credible evidence.”
A default judgment means the defendant did not show up or did not put on a defense. In this case, Mr. Ristuccia did show up for all the court proceedings, according to Ms. Bruce and Justin Tonnessen, her live-in partner at the time. The court documents show that Mr. Ristuccia did not produce the necessary discovery and other documents as ordered by the court, nor did he provide a defense.
“The court finds that the defendant’s violations of G.L. c. 93A were willful and knowing,” reads the judgment, which means the plaintiffs can be awarded multiple damages. “Actual damages amount to $120,000, as the parties agreed. Due to the egregious nature of the violations, the court awards treble damages, together with reasonable attorney’s fees.”
The court also added interest to the award.
During the course of the proceedings, which have been going on for several years, the two parties agreed to a settlement of $120,000, and the matter was put on hold. When Mr. Ristuccia failed to pay the $120,000, the matter was placed back on the docket, went before a judge, and, ultimately, triple damages plus attorney’s fees and interest were awarded to Ms. Bruce.
Both Ms. Bruce and Mr. Tonnessen said that Mr. Ristuccia often told the court he could not remember, saying he was an old man and it was a long time ago.
“It’s disheartening,” said Ms. Bruce. “When we bought this house, we were so hopeful.”
She and Mr. Tonnessen both said they will have to sell it, and at a loss, because they do not have the money to fix the mess created by Mr. Ristuccia. Neither one of them is hopeful that they will get their money.
Bank records, that are cited in the court documents, show that Mr. Ristuccia likely used their money to pay off others who had disputes with them. He clearly did not use that money to pay for materials, as he was supposed to.
So what did he use to build the addition?
Mr. Tonnessen said they used “stuff he had laying around.”
“We have lumber in there that’s old and gray and rotten,” said Mr. Tonnessen who is an offshore fisherman, and was not able to inspect the work as it progressed.
He said the whole addition needs to be re-engineered. It has to be jacked up, it needs support columns, all the windows and door frames need to be replaced.
Mr. Ristuccia also forged Ms. Bruce’s name on the building permit. His name does not appear anywhere. He told the court that he gave the permit to Mr. Tonnessen who had Ms. Bruce sign it. But Mr. Tonnessen said he had documented proof that he was as sea when it was signed.
Mr. Ristuccia also did not have any of the work inspected, not the foundation, not the framing, none of it. Then he sheetrocked over all the flaws. The couple did not realize how bad it was until the addition starting leaking. They got another contractor in and he noticed some problems.
Mr. Tonnessen said he opened up a wall and found a nightmare: the insulation was the wrong kind for the construction; the construction was not to code for a place so close to the water; there were literally gaps in the framing; no metal strapping.
“It’s just a nightmare, the whole thing from top to bottom is just a nightmare,” said Mr. Tonnessen.
In a deposition, former Building Commissioner Wayne Fostin states that he was never contacted to perform an inspection on the property. He said the building permit was issued five days before his last day of work when he retired.
“I understand that Mr. Ristuccia testified at this deposition that I was present at 182 Dogwood at his request to conduct a rough framing inspection. This is not true,” reads Mr. Fostin’s deposition. “I never inspected the premises on any occasion for any reason, either at his request or on my own accord.”
Mr. Fostin also states that he reviewed correspondence from his successor that cited “numerous building code and related violations.”
“In my capacity as a Building Commissioner for over thirty (30) years, I find that the violations cited on this job are completely egregious and raise grave concerns about the safety and structural integrity of the structure,” writes Mr. Fostin.
The judgment includes 10 bullet points detailing specific violations, including:
• The defendant deceived the plaintiff into believing that he was a licensed home improvement contractor who possessed the knowledge and skill to perform the work for which he was hired i.e., construction of an addition to the plaintiff’s home, in violation of 940 CMR 3.16 (2).
• The defendant forged the plaintiff’s signature on an application for a building permit.
• The defendant failed to obtain necessary building permits and to request necessary inspections by the building inspector for the town of Fairhaven
• The defendant constructed the addition using substandard framing and with other structural defects and concealed those defects from the plaintiff
• The defendant misrepresented to the plaintiff that he paid subcontractors.
• The defendant misappropriated payments given to him by the plaintiff for the purpose of paying expenses related to the plaintiff’s project.
The court found that the allegations constitute “unfair and deceptive acts” entitling Ms. Bruce to actual damages and attorney’s fees. In order to award multiple damages, the defendant’s actions need to be willful or knowing, notes the court.
“The court finds the affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to be credible,” reads the judgment. “For the reasons set out in detail in those affidavits and the plaintiff’s memorandum of law, the court finds that the defendant’s violations of G.L. c 93A were willful and knowing.”
As the case was proceeding, the couple’s attorney put a lien or stop sale on properties owned by Mr. Ristuccia. Mostly, though, they found that the properties were always owned by someone else: his wife, son, or daughter.
In a more bizarre twist, the original complaint was against Michael J. Ristuccia, who is Mr. Ristuccia’s son, and he had no idea his properties were being attached. That mixup took several months to clear up.
Mr. Tonnessen said that at one point, the bank records show that Mr. Ristuccia took their money and deposited it into an LLC. Mr. Ristuccia’s grandson withdrew that money, “and it was gone.”
“And he hasn’t been able to produce any documents to contradict that,” said Mr. Tonnessen.
Both Ms. Bruce and Mr. Tonnessen said that Mr. Ristuccia never produced any receipts at all to show where he got the materials or what he spent their money on. Court documents back up their claim.
“He basically pleaded guilty by signing off on the agreement of the $120,000,” said Mr. Tonnessen. “That was him taking culpability for it.”
That agreement, however, gave the couple false hope that they would get paid.
“I could go on for days,” said Mr. Tonnessen. “If one person doesn’t hire him because of this case, it would save a whole heap of trouble.
Both Ms. Bruce and Mr. Tonnessen said they found out too late that Mr. Ristuccia had done the same thing to other people, some with a paper trail in the court system, some that were handled outside the courts.
“I wish others had done it,” he added. “I had people say they wish they had, but that doesn’t do me any good. Those are just words.”
“I just want to make sure he’s never able to do this to anyone else again,” said Ms. Bruce. “People will read it and come to their own conclusions of what a dirtbag he is.”
Mr. Ristuccia did not return a phone call by press time to comment on this story.
All superior court cases and documents are available to the public on the state’s website, www.mass.gov. Follow the links for judicial branch and then superior court, then case search. This case can be found at https://tinyurl.com/5dsr7rcw
The judgment document is on our website at www.neighbnews.com under archives and the7/27/23 issue.
•••
Click here for this week’s issue: 07-27-23 Concert
Click here to download Ristuccia Judgment: 2023.06.29-Ristuccia_Judgment
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal
