Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendants were creditors of Plaintiff who obtained final judgments against Plaintiff. A levy of execution was made on Plaintiff’s real property. Plaintiff subsequently received a discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff did not seek or obtain a ruling from the Bankruptcy Court avoiding any of Defendants’ liens. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint to remove the judicial liens. The judge entered judgment in favor of all three defendants, including two defaulting defendants, ruling that Defendants’ liens remained. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendants’ liens survived the bankruptcy discharge as a matter of federal and state law. View "Christakis v. Jeanne D’Arc Credit Union" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a 2006 amendment to the “obsolete mortgage” statute, under which a mortgage becomes unenforceable after a certain number of years. A mortgage in which the term or maturity date is stated becomes unenforceable five years after the expiration of the term, and a mortgage in which the term or maturity date is not stated becomes unenforceable thirty-five years after recording. Here, Defendant conducted a foreclosure auction purporting to sell certain property that secured two mortgages held by Defendant. At the time, both mortgages would be unenforceable under the amended obsolete mortgage statute if the five-year statute of limitations was applicable. Plaintiff sought a declaration that the mortgages were discharged under the obsolete mortgage statute and that the foreclosure auction was null and void. A land court judge granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding that a reference in the mortgages to the term of the underlying debt was sufficient to state the “term or maturity date of the mortgage.” The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the two mortgages were subject to the five-year period and thus were discharged under the obsolete mortgage statute; and (2) the application of the statute in this case did not violate due process and contracts clause protections. View "Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a respondent in a try title action may test the substantive merits of a petition’s claims in the first step of such an action, where the first step requires that the petition satisfy the jurisdictional elements of the statute. Petitioner in this case filed a petition to try title in the Land Court asserting that a purported assignment of a mortgage was invalid, thereby challenging a foreclosure by a Bank as trustee. Respondents filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim because, at the time of filing, the Bank as the assignee of the mortgage had already foreclosed on Petitioner’s mortgage. The Land Court allowed the motion, concluding that Petitioner’s petition failed to sufficiently allege effective record title, which in turn resulted in a lack of standing, because none of the allegations established any ground on which the assignment could be found invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a petitioner claiming defect in the legal title of a purported mortgagee may only meet the jurisdictional element of an “adverse claim” after that mortgagee has foreclosed; and (2) the judge correctly considered the merits of Petitioner’s claims as a necessary step in determining the absence of his record title, and therefore, dismissal with prejudice was proper. View "Abate v. Fremont Inv. & Loan" on Justia Law

The owner of a tract of land divided the land into three lots, such that a single dwelling would stand on each lot, in conformance with the the subdivision control law’s existing structures exemption, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, 81L. The new lot at 87 Main Street did not conform to the town’s zoning bylaws and rendered the dwelling located thereon nonconforming. The zoning board of appeals granted a variance to make the lot and dwelling lawful. Plaintiff later acquired 87 Main Street and sought a permit to tear down the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The zoning board denied the permit on zoning grounds. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the lot was entitled to grandfather protection under the Zoning Act because the dwelling predated the town’s zoning bylaw and the lot was created pursuant to section 81L. The Land Court determined that Plaintiff was required to obtain a variance. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the new nonconformities arising from the creation of 87 Main Street were rendered lawful by the original variance, the proposed reconstruction of the dwelling, which would have expanded those nonconformities, required a new or amended variance from the town’s zoning bylaw. View "Palitz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

This case arose from a longtime dispute between Dewoe Smallwood and his former girlfriend concerning ownership of certain real property. In 1997, Smallwood’s former girlfriend commenced a civil action against Smallwood, culminating in the sale of the property. After a final judgment was entered, Smallwood commenced this action seeking extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. Smallwood recounted numerous rulings that the superior court judges had made against him in the underlying action and asserted that he had filed complaints against certain judges who had made those adverse rulings, to no avail. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err in dismissing Smallwood’s petition under chapter 211, section 3. View "In re Petition of Smallwood" on Justia Law

In 2011, in response to an increased number of foreclosures, the City of Springfield enacted two ordinances addressing properties left vacant during or after the foreclosure process. The mediation ordinance established a program requiring mandatory mediation between mortgagors and mortgagees. The foreclosure ordinance required owners of buildings that are vacant or undergoing foreclosure to register with the City. Six banks holding mortgage notes on properties in the City (Plaintiffs) filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of the ordinances. The federal district court allowed the City’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, and the First Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court answered (1) the foreclosure statute preempts the mediation ordinance in whole but does not preempt the foreclosure ordinance; (2) the foreclosure ordinance is preempted by the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act and the state sanitary code; and (3) the foreclosure ordinance does not impose an unlawful tax in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. View "Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a performance bond issued by Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. to secure the obligation of an environmental consulting company to perform environmental remediation of contaminated property, a portion of which was owned by Stanley. A.J. Properties, LLC commenced the underlying action against Stanley alleging that it had been assigned the right to recover all funds paid to Stanley under the performance bond. Specifically, A.J. Properties argued that Stanley had assigned the rights to payment when it assigned a mortgage on the property to the Wyman-Gordon Company, which assigned the mortgage to A.J. Properties. A federal district court judge determined that A.J. Properties was entitled to the amounts paid to Stanley under the rule of Quaranto v. Silverman. Stanley appealed, and the court of appeals recommended certification of a question of law to the First Circuit. The First Circuit answered the question as follows: “Where a mortgage and a surety agreement secured an obligation, and both the mortgagor and the surety committed a breach of that obligation prior to a written assignment of the mortgage, the assignee does not necessarily acquire the right against the surety’s receiver for the surety’s breach of its obligation.” View "A.J. Props., LLC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the owner of two adjacent unimproved lots in the town of Scituate. The lots were located in a flood plain and watershed protection district (FPWP district). Plaintiff applied for special permits from the Town’s planning board to construct residential dwellings on the lots. The Board denied the applications, concluding that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that her lots were not “subject to flooding” within the meaning of the applicable zoning bylaw. A land court judge affirmed the Board’s decision. The appeals court reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the appeals court adopted an incorrect definition of the phrase “subject to flooding,” and the land court judge adopted the correct meaning of the phrase. View "Doherty v. Planning Bd. of Scituate" on Justia Law

On April 12, 2010, U.S. Bank National Association initiated a summary process action against Defendant, seeking to evict him from property he owned following the property’s sale to the Bank at a foreclosure auction. On May 25, 2012, a judge entered judgment in favor of the Bank for possession. Defendant appealed, arguing that the foreclosure sale was void because the notice of his right to cure a default did not satisfy the provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A, which gives a mortgagor of residential real property a ninety-day right to cure a payment of default before foreclosure proceedings may be commenced. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) section 35A is not one of the statutes relating to the foreclosure of mortgages by the exercise of a power of sale, and (2) that being the case, and given the deficiencies in the steps Defendant took to obtain relief, Defendant was precluded from challenging the Bank’s compliance with section 35A in this summary process action. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

Petitioners owned thirty-six acres of land in Hampden. The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Division), a unit of the Department of Environmental Protection, restricted Petitioners’ ability to construct a home on their land by delineating the property as a “priority habitat” for the eastern box turtle, a “species of special concern” under 321 Mass. Code Regs. 10.90. Petitioners challenged the validity of the priority habitat regulations insofar as they allowed the Division to designate priority habitat without affording landowners the procedural protections due under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) to those owning property within significant habitats. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of the Division, concluding that the regulations did not exceed the scope of the Division’s authority as granted by MESA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the priority habitat regulations were a reasonable implementation of the enabling statute. View "Pepin v. Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife" on Justia Law