|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
ACUSHNET — Campaign signs supporting Jesse St. Gelais line the winding, rural roads in the candidate’s hometown. An independent, St. Gelais is running to fill an open state representative seat for the 8th Bristol District, and has campaigned on both promoting government transparency and his deep local roots.
“We need someone that is grounded in the community who is going to help this community,” the 41-year-old-political newcomer said in a recent interview with The Light.
Key 2024 election dates
Nov. 5 general election
The general election is Nov. 5, with a new set of deadlines.
Oct. 19 to Nov. 1: Early voting from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Main Public Library, 613 Pleasant St.
Nov. 5: General election. Polls open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
More voter info
Where do you vote? To find your specific polling location, enter your street address and postal zip code in this online form. Check the list of New Bedford’s polling locations here.
Get additional info on voter registration, eligibility, requirements, etc., at the Massachusetts Secretary of Commonwealth website.
Find a list of Massachusetts candidates in the Democratic and Republican primary races.
Learn more about voting in New Bedford and find applications for absentee ballots and applications for voting by mail at the New Bedford Election Commission website.
Find additional information about voting in Massachusetts at Vote 411, from the League of Women Voters Education Fund.
But less than a mile from the candidate’s house on Gammons Road is a mobile home converted into a ranch, in which the occupants — St. Gelais’ neighbors — have a very different experience with the candidate.
Court documents show St. Gelais has been involved in a bitter land dispute that started in 2017 and ended after multiple appeals this month. In the case, a Superior Court judge ruled the candidate engaged in “unjust enrichment” and “acted fraudulently” to engineer the transfer of his neighbor’s property to himself for a fraction of its worth. The homeowner, Joanne Petitpas, a 65-year-old home health aide who has lived on the property since 2003, now says she has to sell her home to cover the debts she still owes to St. Gelais.
“It was a dirty deal,” said Petitpas in an interview with The Light. “I was naive to have trusted him. But that doesn’t give him the right to take advantage of me.”
The trouble for Petitpas began in 2016 when she fell behind on real estate tax. That year, the town of Acushnet sold the tax lien of $11,838 to a Boston-based real estate firm called Tallage, which specializes in the legal practice of harvesting tax liens from municipalities, foreclosing on properties and selling them for a hefty profit.
Often, this process has led to results that critics call “home equity theft” — which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional last year and the Massachusetts legislature abolished this year. In such cases, the firm kept the proceeds of the sale and the homeowners — who often only owed a fraction of the home’s value — were left with nothing.
That was the case for Petitpas, who had paid cash for her home 13 years before and owned it outright. Facing the tax foreclosure, she was panicked, she said, and she perceived St. Gelais as someone with business savvy who might be able to advise her on the situation. St. Gelais’ family owns an insurance agency, and Petitpas had bought car insurance from it for many years. He was also a neighbor, she said, and the two were friendly. Long before his campaign, the candidate often brought over his lawnmower for Petitpas’ significant other to repair, she said.
When Petitpas asked him for help, she said, St. Gelais first offered to purchase the property for $90,000, which was less than half of its assessed value. Petitpas declined the offer, and said she was instead seeking a loan. St. Gelais made a different proposal, in which he would pay the tax lien, allowing Petitpas to continue living at the property for free for one year, and Petitpas would pay him back at the end of that year, with interest.
Petitpas agreed. However, instead of documents for a loan, St. Gelais presented Petitpas with a sale agreement listing Petitpas as the “seller” and himself as the “buyer.” Petitpas said she had limited understanding of the document and no legal representation. She signed each page, and unknowingly transferred ownership of her approximately $200,000 property to St. Gelais for a sum of $40,000 that she thought was a loan.
Of the $40,000, St. Gelais’ lawyer listed $18,848.60 as the amount owed to Tallage for the tax lien and $21,151.40 for septic repairs to be completed on the property, though those repairs were never done, according to court documents. After the deductions, Petitpas netted zero dollars for the transfer of her property, the judge wrote.
“St. Gelais acted fraudulently when he knew that Petitpas did not want to sell her property, and yet he engineered the transfer of the property to himself while causing her to believe that he would retransfer the property to her when she repaid the loan,” Superior Court Associate Justice Susan E. Sullivan judge wrote in an August 2023 ruling. It added that St. Gelais “took advantage” of the situation and “attained title to the property for $18,000.”
St. Gelais was out campaigning on Tuesday morning when contacted by The Light. He described the situation with an adage: “No good deed goes unpunished,” he said, adding that he took issue with the judge’s ruling that he engaged in “unjust enrichment.” He said Petitpas has lived on the property rent-free for the last eight years, since he was transferred ownership, and that with the legal fees and costs associated with ownership, he has actually lost money on the property.
“If I had not stepped in, she would have lost her home eight years ago,” he said. “I would never step on someone to get ahead. I didn’t want to displace her. That’s why I didn’t try to evict her.”
St. Gelais said he was clear about the terms of the deal, and though Petitpas may not have understood those terms, his lawyer advised her to gain legal representation, which she declined. The judge, however, cast doubt on that claim.
“St. Gelais would have the court believe that Petitpas rejected his offer of $90,000 for a property valued at nearly $200,000, but then accepted an offer of $40,000 for the same property, resulting in no cash in her pocket,” Justice Sullivan wrote. “The court does not credit St. Gelais’ testimony.”
A few months after signing the transfer, Petitpas had secured the money she had anticipated she would use to pay back St. Gelais, plus interest, to regain ownership of her property. However, when she contacted St. Gelais, and asked him the “buy back” amount, meaning how much interest she had accrued, St. Gelais told her he was not interested in transferring the property back to her. Instead, St. Gelais told her she would soon have to begin paying $1,200 per month in rent. When she said she wouldn’t pay rent, as she didn’t understand that to be part of the agreement, he put a “for sale” sign in the front yard and listed the property for $199,900.
“Tallage wanted to take my house for short money,” Petitpas said. “I didn’t know who to turn to. I had no lawyer, nothing … I thought [St. Gelais] was saving me. Then he turned around and tried to do the same exact thing as Tallage.”
The legal saga between St. Gelais and Petitpas came to an end this month. The judge initially ruled in August 2023 that St. Gelais engaged in a “scheme for unjust enrichment at the expense of Petitpas” and found that “in equity and good conscience, St. Gelais ought not to retain the premises.” However, St. Gelais has continued to pay real estate taxes, insurance and other costs associated with owning the property; and the judge ordered Petitpas to reimburse St. Gelais for those expenses.
Petitpas’ claims were tried before an advisory jury, which was asked to provide an advisory verdict, though the judge had ultimate discretion in the ruling. The jury rejected Petitpas’ claims, concluding that St. Gelais did not commit fraud and that he was not unjustly enriched. However, the judge broke with the jury’s advisory verdict, ruling that St. Gelais was unjustly enriched at Petitpas’ expense.
St. Gelais has filed two appeals to reflect the increasing reimbursements. The final order, filed on Oct. 23, 2024, requires Petitpas to pay St. Gelais $50,167.69. St. Gelais said he also filed the appeals because he didn’t agree with the judge’s characterization of “fraud” and “unjust enrichment” and wanted to clear his reputation.
“I don’t understand how justice was served here for anybody,” he said. “I have worked hard for my reputation. I don’t like that this insinuates I tried to swindle someone. My track record will speak for itself.”
Petitpas says she no longer has the money she previously offered St. Gelais to cover the debts when she first attempted to regain ownership of the property. She says now her only choice is to sell her home to cover the debts. She has only 14 days as of the Oct. 23 ruling to repay St. Gelais, and doesn’t yet know where she will live once the property is sold.
“I went to him in good faith,” she added. “We’re old school. I thought I could trust my neighbor. I thought, ‘He’s a nice guy; he wouldn’t screw me over.’ I had no idea.”
With one week until the election, St. Gelais is one of five candidates vying to fill the open state representative seat for the 8th Bristol District. Petitpas said she hasn’t followed his campaign, but has seen his signs along the quiet, rural road they share on her commutes to work.
“I’m not voting for him,” she said.
Editor’s note: This story was amended on Oct. 31, 2024, to note that the judge overturned a jury’s advisory verdict in favor of St. Gelais.
Email reporter Will Sennott at wsennott@newbedfordlight.org.
Yellow journalism at it’s finest! So i read the case. It’s a civil case, a contract dispute. You might want to fix a few things I know it’s not as click bait but it’s more ethical. 1
Following a jury trial, the judge entered a directed verdict in favor of St. Gelais on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and the jury found St. Gelais not liable for fraudulent inducement. The judge submitted the unjust enrichment claim to the jury on an advisory basis. While the jury concluded that St. Gelais was not unjustly enriched, the judge found otherwise and a judgment entered in favor of Petitpas.3 St. Gelais