In Coolidge Construction Co. v. Planning Bd. of Andover, Land Court Case Nos. 99-0057, 245300, 246142 (August 10, 2000) 8 LCR 268, the court (Green, J.) found that if the plan at issue had been constructively approved, the planning board in that case could have rescinded it without consent of the mortgagee because it was "plainly a sham transaction, lacking economic substance and devised for the primary, if not the sole, purpose of interfering with the planning board's ability to rescind the claimed constructive approval." In addition to several egregious facts related to the amount of the loan and funds deposited in escrow so that there were no real financial consequences to several of the parties, the court noted that the same attorney represented both the borrowers and the bank. The attorney for the bank, therefore, was aware of the nature and purpose of the transaction, and that attorney's knowledge was imputed to the bank. The court concluded based on the relationships between the parties to that transaction, the relatively small amount of the loan ($ 15,000), and numerous other facts specific to that case that "nothing about the transaction was bona fide." Therefore, the rescission was unaffected by the mortgages on the parcels at issue.