JOHN BOURGAULT v. ROBERT HALBEN & Another.

── JOHN BOURGAULT v. ROBERT HALBEN & Another. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 20, 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-218 JOHN BOURGAULT vs. ROBERT HALBEN & another. 1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The plaintiff, John Bourgault, appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court in favor of the defendants, Robert Halben and Lori Anderson-Halben, 2 on all claims asserted in his complaint. We affirm. Background. We summarize the facts from the summary judgment record, viewing them "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party," Huang v. Ma, 491 Mass. 235, 239 (2023), here, the plaintiff. 1 Lori Anderson-Halben. 2As the defendants share a last name, we refer to them by their first names for clarity.  On March 10, 2020, the plaintiff visited the defendants' home to view a camper that they had listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace for $3,300. Robert showed the plaintiff around the camper and told him that "everything works with normal wear and tear." Robert pointed out some scratches on the exterior of the camper and told the plaintiff, "This is the only physical damage that I am aware of." He told the plaintiff that the camper was twenty years old, that the defendants were not its original owners, and that "the camper has never leaked for me but I cannot attest to the previous owner." The plaintiff put down a $400 deposit on the camper. Two days later, the plaintiff returned to the defendants' home, viewed the camper again, and paid Robert the balance of the purchase price, which amounted to $2,900. Another two days after that, on March 14, Robert transported the camper to the plaintiff's home. On March 28, two weeks after the camper had been delivered, when the plaintiff opened a window in the camper, the window handle fell off and the wall bowed outward. Upon further inspection, he discovered a strip of tape duct tape covering a seam in the wall. He found another strip of duct tape covering a seam behind a cabinet. Under the tape, he discovered dampness and rot in the camper's walls and ceiling. He eventually found significant water damage throughout the camper, including 2 "multiple patches . . . [of] wet, rotted, slippery and soft wood" on the roof. The defendants testified at their depositions that Lori had applied two layers of tape to seams in the wall and ceiling in 2016, or perhaps later, because the seams had separated and ants had entered the camper. Lori denied noticing any water damage or moisture when she taped the wall and ceiling. The following June, the plaintiff climbed onto the camper's roof to inspect it and make repairs. He slipped and fell off the top of the camper, fracturing his orbital bone. He continues to suffer physical and mental symptoms related to the fall. Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of the pleadings. A defendant may challenge the validity of the pleadings by moving to dismiss the pla