Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between partners in a limited partnership formed to develop and operate an affordable housing project in Boston. The financing and structure of the project were driven by the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which incentivizes private investment in affordable housing through tax credits. The partnership agreement included a right of first refusal (ROR) for the nonprofit general partner to purchase the property at a below-market price after the compliance period.In the Superior Court, the judge ruled on cross motions for summary judgment, concluding that the investor limited partner, AMTAX, did not have a consent right over a sale to the nonprofit general partner under the ROR agreement. However, the judge also ruled that the purchase price under the ROR agreement must include the limited partners' exit tax liability. The judge dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims due to lack of evidentiary support or as a consequence of these rulings.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that AMTAX's consent was not required for the preliminary steps leading to a sale under the ROR agreement. The court also held that the limited partners' exit taxes were "attributable to" the sale of the property and must be included in the purchase price. The court found that the notice of consent rights recorded by AMTAX was accurate and did not constitute slander of title or tortious interference. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, slander of title, and violation of G. L. c. 93A were dismissed. The judgment was affirmed. View "Tenants' Development Corporation v. Amtax Holdings 227, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Communities Act, which mandates that cities and towns with local access to MBTA services adopt zoning laws to provide at least one district of multifamily housing "as of right" near their MBTA facilities. The town of Milton, which has four MBTA stations, voted down a proposed zoning scheme to comply with the act. The Attorney General then sued the town to enforce the act.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk reviewed the case. The town initially took steps to comply with the act, including hiring a consultant and submitting an action plan to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC). However, a town-wide referendum ultimately rejected the proposed zoning bylaw. The Attorney General filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce compliance with the act.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the MBTA Communities Act is constitutional and that the Attorney General has the authority to enforce it. However, the court found that the HLC did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when promulgating the guidelines, rendering them ineffective. The court granted declaratory relief in part and dismissed the remaining claims, directing the single justice to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with the opinion. View "Attorney General v. Town of Milton" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Land Court regarding a property in Duxbury, claiming ownership following a foreclosure sale. The defendants, who had executed a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff's predecessor, refused to vacate the property. The Land Court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring them the lawful owner. The defendants appealed this decision.Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a summary process complaint in the Housing Court to gain possession of the property and requested use and occupancy payments from the defendants during the litigation. The Housing Court judge granted this request but stayed the proceedings pending the appeal of the Land Court judgment. The defendants sought interlocutory relief from a single justice of the Appeals Court, who vacated the Housing Court's order, stating that the Housing Court judge had not determined ownership.The plaintiff renewed their motion in the Housing Court, which was again granted, with the judge explicitly relying on the Land Court's judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The defendants again sought relief from the single justice, who vacated the order, arguing that the Housing Court judge's reliance on the appealed Land Court judgment was improper. The plaintiff was granted leave to appeal to a full panel of the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion.The Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge hearing a summary process action for possession may rely on a final judgment of the Land Court regarding ownership, even if an appeal is pending. The court confirmed that the Land Court's judgment had preclusive effect, allowing the Housing Court judge to order interim use and occupancy payments. The order of the single justice was reversed, and the defendants' petition for relief was denied. View "TJR Services LLC v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

A severe thunderstorm caused significant damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and leased to Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward). The storm led to extensive flooding in the hospital's basements and rainwater accumulation on the rooftop courtyard and parapet roofs, which then seeped into the building, causing further damage. MPT and Steward sought coverage from their insurers, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (AGLIC), respectively. Both policies had high overall coverage limits but lower sublimits for flood damage. The insurers argued that all the damage was due to "Flood" as defined in the policies, which included "surface waters," and thus subject to the lower sublimits.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted partial summary judgment to the insurers, interpreting "surface waters" to include rainwater accumulated on the roofs. The court allowed an interlocutory appeal, recognizing the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this legal issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit then certified the question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, asking whether rainwater accumulating on a building's rooftop courtyard or parapet roof constitutes "surface waters" under Massachusetts law.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded that the term "surface waters" is ambiguous in this context. The court noted the lack of a clear definition in the policies and the divided case law on the issue. Given this ambiguity, the court ruled in favor of the insureds, determining that rainwater accumulating on the rooftop courtyard and parapet roofs does not unambiguously constitute "surface waters" under the policies. Therefore, the damage from such water infiltration is not subject to the flood sublimits. View "Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2016, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) acquired the high bid at a foreclosure sale of Anthony Michael Branch's property. Fannie Mae then initiated a summary process action in the Housing Court to gain possession. The court ruled in favor of Fannie Mae, and Branch appealed. During the appeal, Fannie Mae sold the property to Roberto Pina Cardoso. Cardoso intervened in the case and was awarded use and occupancy payments from Branch. The Appeals Court later vacated the Housing Court's judgment for possession, declaring it moot since Fannie Mae no longer had a possessory interest, and required Cardoso to establish his right to possession in a new case.The Housing Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae for possession and dismissed Branch's counterclaims. Branch appealed, and during the appeal, Cardoso was allowed to intervene and was joined as a party with Fannie Mae. The Appeals Court vacated the judgment for possession as moot but affirmed the dismissal of Branch's counterclaims.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and disagreed with the Appeals Court's mootness determination. The court held that Cardoso, having acquired Fannie Mae's interest, maintained a live stake in the adjudication of the judgment for possession. The court affirmed the Housing Court's order allowing Cardoso to intervene and be joined as a party. It also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae for possession and the dismissal of Branch's counterclaims. The court concluded that the foreclosure was valid and that Pentagon Federal Credit Union, as the authorized agent of the note holder, had the authority to foreclose. View "Fannie Mae v. Branch" on Justia Law

The case involves Pure Oasis LLC, which applied for a conditional use permit to operate a recreational cannabis dispensary in Boston. The building commissioner denied the permit, and Pure Oasis appealed to the Board of Appeal of Boston. After multiple hearings, the board approved the permit. William Shoucair, an abutter to the property, opposed the permit, arguing it would negatively impact the neighborhood and filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Suffolk County, appealing the board's decision.The Superior Court judge ordered each plaintiff to post a $3,500 bond, despite not finding the appeal to be in bad faith. The judge applied the standard from Damaskos v. Board of Appeal of Boston, which allows for a bond to discourage frivolous appeals while not obstructing meritorious ones. The plaintiffs sought interlocutory review, and a single justice of the Appeals Court stayed the bond order and allowed an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that under Section 11 of the Boston zoning enabling act, a preliminary finding of bad faith or malice is not required before imposing a bond for damages. The court reaffirmed the standard from Damaskos, which balances discouraging frivolous appeals with not obstructing meritorious ones. The court found no abuse of discretion by the lower court judge in setting the bond amount and affirmed the order. View "Shoucair v. Board of Appeal of Boston" on Justia Law

A general contractor, Graycor Construction Company Inc., was involved in a dispute with a subcontractor, Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust, over unpaid invoices for flooring work performed on a movie theater project. Business Interiors submitted three separate applications for periodic payments, which Graycor neither approved nor rejected within the time limit set by the Prompt Pay Act. As a result, the applications were deemed approved under the Act. Business Interiors sued Graycor for breach of contract and other claims in the Superior Court. The Superior Court granted Business Interiors's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and entered separate and final judgment. Graycor appealed.Graycor argued that the original contract was not a "contract for construction" within the meaning of the Act, and that it had a valid impossibility defense due to its failure to pay. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Act defines its scope broadly, and the subcontract at issue was a "contract for construction" under the Act. The Court also held that common-law defenses are not precluded by the Act, but a contractor that does not approve or reject an application for payment in compliance with the Act must pay the amount due prior to, or contemporaneous with, the invocation of any common-law defenses in any subsequent proceeding regarding enforcement of the invoices. As Graycor sought to exercise its defenses without ever paying the invoices, it could not pursue the defenses. The Court also vacated and remanded the rule 54 (b) certification to the motion judge for reconsideration. View "Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Company Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Edward A. Cianci and Raymond Frechette, who purchased a foreclosed property and initiated a summary process action in the Housing Court against the occupants, including Elizabeth D'Andrea. The Housing Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for possession. D'Andrea appealed and sought to waive the appeal bond due to her indigency. The Housing Court found D'Andrea to be indigent and waived her appeal bond, but required her to make monthly use and occupancy payments of $1,275 to the plaintiffs to maintain her appeal. D'Andrea appealed this order to the Appeals Court, which reported questions of law to the Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that use and occupancy payments required of an indigent party under G. L. c. 239, § 5 (e), may not be waived, substituted, or paid by the Commonwealth under the indigency statute because use and occupancy payments are not an "extra fee or cost" as defined in the indigency statute. The court further concluded that the order setting use and occupancy payments in this case did not violate D'Andrea's constitutional rights, even if the order requires her to make payments that potentially exceed her ability to pay. The court reasoned that the summary process statute reasonably imposes a fair balancing of interests between the owner of the property and the party in possession, and the Housing Court performed the fair balancing required. View "Frechette v. D'Andrea" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Outfront Media LLC (Outfront), a company that entered into a contract with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to advertise on outdoor signs owned by the MBTA. The city of Boston assessed real estate tax for fiscal year 2021 on Outfront for the signs. Outfront sought an abatement of the tax, arguing that the signs were exempt from taxation under § 24. The city denied Outfront's claim for abatement, and Outfront appealed to the Appellate Tax Board (board), which upheld the tax assessment.The Appellate Tax Board upheld the city of Boston's tax assessment on Outfront Media LLC for the use of outdoor advertising signs owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Outfront had argued that the signs were exempt from taxation under § 24, but the board disagreed, leading to Outfront's appeal.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the decision of the Appellate Tax Board. The court held that Outfront's use of the MBTA's outdoor advertising signs to post advertisements and generate advertising revenue constituted a "use" of the MBTA's property "in connection with a business conducted for profit" under § 24. The court distinguished such businesses from those merely providing a service for the MBTA such as a janitorial service. Therefore, Outfront used the signs within the meaning of § 24 and the decision of the board was upheld. View "Outfront Media LLC v. Board of Assessors of Boston" on Justia Law

In this case, several residents of the town of Norwell, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit to compel the town's select board to transfer municipal land to the town's conservation commission. The select board had previously designated the land for the development of affordable housing. The main issue on appeal was whether the land was "held by a city or town . . . for a specific purpose" under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 15A. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the Land Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the select board. The Supreme Judicial Court held that town-owned land is held for a specific municipal purpose under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 15A, where the totality of the circumstances indicates a clear and unequivocal intent by the town to hold the land for such purpose. Applying this totality of the circumstances test, the court found no material dispute of fact regarding the town's intent to dedicate the municipal land at issue for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, the court concluded that the allowance of summary judgment for the select board was correct. View "Carroll v. Select Board of Norwell" on Justia Law