In a long-running Massachusetts foreclosure case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Coulsey, the Massachusetts Appeals Court weighed in on the applicability and limits of Chapter 93A. The decision provides guidance as to how—and when—Chapter 93A claims may be brought, and when repeated litigation crosses the line into claim preclusion.

The dispute began in 2007 when the plaintiff purchased a home with a loan and mortgage she would soon default on. Over the next 17 years, the plaintiff engaged in a prolonged legal battle with multiple mortgage holders, ultimately culminating in an eviction. The plaintiff repeatedly but unsuccessfully invoked Chapter 93A in an attempt to block foreclosure and eviction. The plaintiff’s claims were first dismissed without prejudice in federal court and her later attempts to revive or amend the 93A claims were rejected. They were again dismissed in a state court in a collateral action.

The Appeals Court affirmed the state-court dismissal and issued a clear rebuke to repeatedly raising Chapter 93A claims based on the same factual nucleus. The Appeals Court emphasized the following:

1. Prior Opportunity. The plaintiff was allowed in 2016 to amend her complaint to better articulate 93A violations. That was the moment to raise all related theories. The court found that “any new basis or theory supporting her c. 93A claim could have been brought at that time.”
   
2. Ongoing Harm v. Ongoing Claim. Plaintiff argued that her 93A claim should be revived because defendant’s alleged misconduct was “ongoing.” The court rejected that logic, stating: “[Plaintiff’s] assertion that c. 93A violations are ongoing and therefore could not have been advanced in prior litigation is contrary to the purpose of res judicata…”  In short, the passage of time or continued impact did not give the plaintiff the right to relitigate previously dismissed claims.
   
3. Chapter 93A Not Exempt from Res Judicata. Importantly, the court reiterated that Chapter 93A claims—like any civil claim—are subject to rules of finality. If a claim is dismissed with prejudice or could have been litigated earlier, it cannot be brought again just by rebranding it or restating the facts.

Implications for Companies

A litigant does not get endless chances to reframe Chapter 93A claims. If the allegations asserted are vague or conclusory, challenging them in a motion to dismiss is appropriate even under the broad reach of Chapter 93A. The decision underscores that consumer rights are balanced against the need for closure. Once courts have ruled on a matter, even the broad protections of Chapter 93A will not open the door to re-litigating the same claims under a new heading.