Appeals court reviews post‑settlement property dispute over waiver, proof of funds and interlocutory review

The appeals panel heard a post‑settlement dispute over whether a housing‑court summary judgment and subsequent orders were properly reviewable and whether the lower court erred in finding waiver and sufficient proof of funds.

Nicholas Teixeira, appearing for Wilmington Trust, argued the appeal fits exceptions to the general prohibition on interlocutory appeals and warned that dismissal would allow a sale to proceed and cause irreparable harm. He also contested the trial judge’s factual findings on financing, saying the record lacks evidence that the purchaser showed $600,000 in financing and that a cited $575,000 document does not equal the required amount.

Opposing counsel Luke McCardell said the record and prior appellate rulings support jurisdiction and that the judge appropriately exercised discretion to enter findings on cross motions for summary judgment; he argued the parties’ conduct suggested waiver and that proof‑of‑funds objections were raised belatedly. The court questioned whether a remand on the damages (attorney’s fees) or a single‑justice procedure could have preserved parties’ interests.

The panel repeatedly pressed on whether the housing court’s findings were proper without an evidentiary hearing and whether the underlying settlement terms plainly required proof of financing for the full purchase price. The argument concluded with both sides thanking the court; no decision was announced.