JACQUELINE ELECTRIC & CONTRACTING, INC. v. DAVID TETREAULT & Others.

── JACQUELINE ELECTRIC & CONTRACTING, INC. v. DAVID TETREAULT & Others. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-750 JACQUELINE ELECTRIC & CONTRACTING, INC. vs. DAVID TETREAULT1 & others.2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The plaintiff, Jacqueline Electric & Contracting, Inc. (JEC), brought this action seeking damages against its former employee, David Tetreault.3 JEC claimed that Tetreault took 1 Also known as David R. Tetreault. 2Santander Bank, N.A.; TD Bank, N.A.; Citi Cards, a Division of City Bank; and First Essex Bank of Lawrence as trustee process, injunctive relief, and reach and apply defendants. 3JEC's complaint alleged the following claims: (1) larceny by embezzlement, pursuant to G. L. c. 266 § 30; (2) conversion; and (3) money had and received; and sought (4) a declaratory judgment; (5) an injunction preventing Tetreault from spending or transferring any of the funds at issue and reach and apply relief; and (6) real estate attachments against the bank holding the mortgage on Tetreault's home, and trustee process attachments against the bank which financed his personal credit card. approximately two million dollars from the company without authority. At trial, Tetreault did not dispute that he took large sums of money from JEC. He maintained, however, that he had permission from JEC's owner and president, Jacqueline Gorman, to take the funds as compensation pursuant to an oral employment agreement. Gorman testified that she did not authorize the payments at issue. The jury believed Tetreault and returned a verdict in his favor. Thereafter, JEC's motion for a new trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and motions for reconsideration were denied. This appeal ensued.4 Background. The relevant facts are as follows. JEC is a general contracting and electrical company with a principal place of business in South Easton. As noted, Gorman is the owner of the company. She met Tetreault in 2014 at their local gym. After learning that Tetreault was a disabled veteran, Gorman offered him part-time employment, which Tetreault accepted. Tetreault began working fifteen to sixteen hours a week and was paid $13 an hour. Initially, Tetreault's duties consisted of cleaning up jobsites and making deliveries. As time went on, Tetreault assumed additional responsibilities, which included data entry of invoices, bills and banking Tetreault, who represented himself at trial, did not enter 4 an appearance and did not file a brief. 2 statements. In view of these new responsibilities, Gorman orally agreed to raise Tetreault's hourly wage to $15 an hour with a weekly cap of $500 a week. Occasionally, Gorman also permitted Tetreault to use JEC's credit card to take his wife out to dinner and gave him gift cards as bonuses. Tetreault's responsibilities continued to increase and so