Category Archives: real estate

Victory in Eminent Domain Case

Posted on by

union_sqI’m happy to report that the Massachusetts Superior Court rendered a favorable decision based on a brief that I wrote in an eminent domain case. This eminent domain case involved the Somerville Redevelopment Authority’s takings of multiple parcels of real property in the Union Square area. The City of Somerville made the takings in connection with an expansion of the MBTA’s Green Line, as well as a redevelopment of the Union Square area.

The owners of the parcels, one of whom I represented, disputed the amount that the City of Somerville tendered when the City took the properties by eminent domain. The City of Somerville argued that based on the “project influence rule,” the value of the properties should be determined based on valuations in 2003, when the project to revitalize Union Square was first announced. The City sought to exclude any evidence of valuations of the property after 2003. That interpretation of the project influence rule would essentially freeze the property values at 2003 levels.

I, along with attorney John S. Leonard, drafted briefs opposing the City’s interpretation of the project influence rule. The court denied the City’s motion, and agreed with our interpretation of the project influence rule. The Court ruled that our client’s evidence regarding the value of the properties at the time of the taking was admissible, and could be considered along with the City’s evidence. That meant that our clients could argue that the properties taken by the City should be valued closer to their current values, not their 2003 values.

The full text of the court’s decision is available here.

If You Own a Corporation or LLC, You Must Be Represented By An Attorney In Court

Posted on by

judge_robeOften, and particularly in landlord tenant matters, business owners will try to represent themselves in Court. In the legal world, we call this pro se representation, and it is usually driven by the cost of hiring an attorney. While individuals are allowed to represent themselves in court, corporations or limited liability companies cannot do so, except in small claims cases. See Varney Enterprises, Inc. v. WMF, Inc., 402 Mass. 79, 79 (1988). If a corporation or limited liability company owner tries to appear in court on behalf of their company, the company can be defaulted.

As a practical matter, this means that if you are a landlord, but your business is run through a corporation or limited liability company, you must hire an attorney to pursue an eviction or respoind to a lawsuit. Likewise, if a customer or vendor sues your company, you must hire an attorney to represent the corporation or limited liability company or you risk a default. If the court defaults you, it means the other party has won the case. A default can subject you or your company to monetary damages.

If you do get defaulted, you should seek an experienced attorney immediately. It may be possible to get the default removed and the case reinstated, but this requires quick action by competent counsel. In fact, the best legal advice anyone can give you is to retain competent legal counsel whenever you interact with the legal system. While it may seem expensive at first, in the long run a good attorney will save you headaches, financial pitfalls, and allow you more time to focus on what you do best.

Appeals Court Victory in Quiet Title Action

Posted on by

I am pleased to announce that my client obtained a victory in Appeals Court this week. In Golrick vs. U.S. Bank, National Association, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld a trial court decision appeals-courtroom-019-463x347on a quiet title action filed by the former owner of the property, Jeanne Golrick. Golrick claimed that there were issues with the foreclosure performed by my client, U.S. Bank, and  that vested title with her. My firm successfully defended this quiet title claim at trial, and Golrick appealed.

I drafted the appeal brief, and the Court agreed with my client that Golrick’s claims lacked merit and that title should be vested with U.S. Bank. The text of the opinion can be found here: Golrick v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2016 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 441 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 22, 2016).

Supreme Judicial Court Issues Decision Strengthening Rights of Condominium Associations in Condo Fee Collection Actions

Posted on by

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has just issued a decision that will serve to strengthen the already favorable statutory scheme that allows condominium associations to Appeals Courtobtain priority liens in condo fee collection cases. The decision in Drummer Boy Homes Association, Inc. vs. Britton, SJC-11969, decided March 29, 2016, relies heavily on the Court’s interpretation of the Legislature’s intent in the condominium statute, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 183. According to the SJC, that intent was to provide condo associations with the necessary tools to ensure that condo fees are recovered so that associations can maintain properties and prevent community blight.

The dispute in Drummer Boy centers on the nature of the priority lien provided by Massachusetts G.L. c. 183 s. 6. That statute allows condo associations to file an action and obtain a priority lien for the prior six months of unpaid condo fees. The priority lien takes precedence over most others on title, including mortgages. Since the statute only provides this lien priority for the prior six months of dues, the common practice was for condo associations to file successive actions every six months to obtain priority liens for continuing unpaid dues.

In Drummer Boy, the Defendant challenged the condo fee’s right under the statute to bring these successive actions. Although the Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed with the Defendant, the Supreme Judicial Court overturned the Appeals Court and decided that a condominium association may file successive actions to create priority liens for continuing unpaid dues after the first six months.

The Drummer Boy decision means that condominium associations continue to retain powerful tools to collect unpaid dues, including the power to obtain priority liens on the unit for all unpaid dues.  The Drummer Boy decision also affirmed the condominium association’s rights to obtain all legal fees expended in collecting condominium fees. Condominium associations facing members who fail to pay dues should not hesitate to contact an attorney to seek collection of unpaid dues.