Week in Review: Hernandez Investigation
The following were the top articles on South End Patch from June 24 to June 28, 2013: Poli South End Patch News
Categories: Arrests Tags: Hernandez, Investigation, Review, Week
Watch out for Fake RMV Websites
By: Bret Silverberg WCVB’s Newscenter 5 reported this week that drivers attempting to renew their licenses are being
South End Business and Volunteer Honored by Boston Main Streets
A local South End business and a South End volunteer were honored this week when they were named winners of the Boston Main Street Awards. M. Flynn Accessories, a jewelry store at 40 South End Patch News
Harmon Law Offices, P.C. v. Attorney General (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-085-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑407 Appeals Court HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C. vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL. No. 12‑P‑407. Suffolk. October 11, 2012. ‑ June 28, 2013. Present: Graham, Vuono, & Hanlon, JJ. Attorney General. Consumer Protection Act, Demand letter. Mortgage, Foreclosure. Attorney at Law, Attorney‑client relationship. Privileged Communication. Practice, Civil, Interlocutory appeal. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 15, 2010. The case was heard by Bonnie H. MacLeod‑Mancuso, J. Evan T. Lawson (Michele A. Hunton with him) for the plaintiff. Jonathan B. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. VUONO, J. Acting pursuant to her authority under the Massachusetts consumer protection act, G. L. c. 93A (c. 93A or the statute), the Attorney General issued two civil investigative demands (CIDs or demands) to Harmon Law Offices, P.C. (Harmon), seeking information regarding its foreclosure and eviction practices.[1] Harmon challenged the demands and filed a complaint seeking relief under § 6(7) of the statute.[2] After a hearing, a judge of the Superior Court concluded that Harmon had not met its burden of showing good cause to set aside the CIDs and dismissed the complaint. Harmon appeals, claiming that the judge abused her discretion because the demands interfere with Harmon’s attorney-client relationships, and the requested documents are protected by the litigation privilege. Harmon also contends that, by representing its clients in foreclosure and eviction proceedings, it is not engaged in trade or commerce and therefore cannot be subject to liability under c. 93A. Thus, Harmon maintains, the Attorney General exceeded her authority by requesting information directly from Harmon regarding possible violations of c. 93A. For substantially the reasons articulated by the Superior Court judge in her thorough memorandum of decision and order dismissing Harmon’s complaint, we conclude that Harmon has not met its burden of showing good cause why it should not be required to produce the requested documents. Accordingly, we affirm. 1. Appellate review of the judge’s order. We begin by addressing a procedural issue which neither party has brought to our attention. An order denying a motion brought pursuant to c. 93A, § 6(7), to set aside or modify a CID is to be distinguished from an order of compliance issued by a court under § 7 of the statute. The former is interlocutory and not appealable as a final order, see […]
South End Condos Versus Others
How does the condominium market in the South End compare to other major Greater Boston markets? To find out, I surveyed the MLS sales between 2005 and 2012 in nine of Greater Boston’s most important condominium markets—Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Charl South End Patch News
In the Matter of the Estate of Sharis (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-086-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑693 Appeals Court IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE R. SHARIS. No. 12‑P‑693. Suffolk. March 20, 2013. ‑ June 28, 2013. Present: Vuono, Rubin, & Sullivan, JJ. Will, Testamentary capacity, Undue influence. Undue Influence. Petition for probate of a will filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on April 14, 2010. The case was heard by John M. Smoot, J. Jonathan D. Plaut for Richard Spinelli. Andrew G. Bunnell for Florence Cavallaro. SULLIVAN, J. Richard Spinelli appeals from a decision of a judge of the Probate and Family Court disallowing the will of his grandmother, Alice R. Sharis (Alice),[1] on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and Spinelli’s undue influence. We discern no error in the judge’s conclusions that Spinelli was a fiduciary, and that the will was the product of undue influence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.[2] 1. Background. Born in 1916, Alice came to the United States from Turkey when she was twelve years old, and completed the seventh grade. She had three daughters, Virginia, Louise, and Florence, with her first husband, whom she divorced in 1959. She had sixteen surviving grandchildren and several great-grandchildren. The decedent married her second husband, Peter, in 1961. Peter, who predeceased Alice by thirteen months, suffered from Alzheimer’s disease in the last years of his life and lived in a nursing home during the last six months of his life. Spinelli is one of Alice’s grandchildren. After separating from his wife in November, 2003, he asked Alice and Peter if he could move into their home. He remained there through Peter’s illness and death and the death of Alice on February 13, 2010. He made no monetary contributions to the upkeep or running of the home, but he did drive Alice to medical appointments and other destinations. The judge found that Spinelli gained nearly complete control of Alice and Peter’s checking account between 2006 and 2008. Spinelli signed Peter’s name to 119 checks between March 4, 2006, and February 4, 2008. Alice complained to one of her daughters and a granddaughter that she did not know where her money or checks were. On June 30, 2007, Alice signed a durable power of attorney, prepared by Spinelli, that took effect immediately and […]
Hugenberger, et al. v. Alpha Management Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-087-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑1788 Appeals Court CHRIS HUGENBERGER & another[1] vs. ALPHA MANAGEMENT CORP. No. 12‑P‑1788. June 28, 2013. Consumer Protection Act, Demand letter. The plaintiffs appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department (BMC) affirming the trial judge’s allowing the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and ordering the entry of judgment for the defendant. The trial judge concluded that “the failure to offer the [G. L. c.] 93A demand letter, proof of a required element in the plaintiffs’ case, was a fatal mistake.” The plaintiffs claim error in this ruling on the ground that they were not required, in the circumstances, to offer the demand letter in evidence and that the failure to do so was not manifestly wrong so as to allow the judge to reconsider his earlier denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed finding. As we disagree, we affirm. The plaintiffs brought a complaint in the BMC, alleging, as here relevant, a claim against the defendant, a residential property management company, under G. L. c. 93A, § 2, for reneging on a promised lease of premises. After a bench trial, the judge ordered judgment to enter in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $ 1,851, which he doubled to $ 3,702, and awarded attorney’s fees of $ 6,000. The judge also made the finding the “G. L. c. 93A demand letter was not offered as an exhibit by the plaintiff during the trial. A copy of the 93A demand letter was attached as an exhibit to the complaint.” Furthermore, the defendant requested a ruling of law that its response to the plaintiffs’ demand letter was reasonable. The judge ruled in response: “Requests finding of fact. Defendant’s response not in evidence. Denied.” The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling on its motion for a directed finding, asserting that the plaintiffs’ failure to introduce the demand letter in evidence was fatal to their claim.[2] The plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting in part that the defendant itself had established receipt of the demand letter in its request for a ruling of law. The judge allowed reconsideration and allowed the defendant’s motion for a directed finding in its favor. The Appellate Division agreed, stating: “[b]ecause the demand letter is an element that must be proven […]
Categories: News Tags: 1108713, Alpha, Corp., Hugenberger, Lawyers, Management, Weekly
Open Houses in the South End This Weekend
Don't see anything you like here? Take a look at more South End homes for sale! SOUTH END PATCH:
Post Your Yard Sales in the South End
Having a Garage or Yard Sale? Share the details here to be added to our interactive map of sales. Later this week we'll show you a map of sales in the area. This map shows you sales in several Boston neighborhoods. You can also add your sale t South End Patch News