Posts tagged "Beacon"

Beacon Residential Management, LP v. R.P. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-148-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   SJC-12265   BEACON RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LP  vs.  R.P.[1]       Suffolk.     April 6, 2017. – September 14, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[2]     Summary Process.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, Intervention.       Summary Process.  Complaint filed in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on July 27, 2015.   A motion to intervene was heard by Jeffrey M. Winik, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed in the Appeals Court by Gregory I. Massing, J.  After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     David Emer (Alison T. Holdway also present) for the mother. Therese Quijano for the plaintiff. Julia Devanthéry, for Casa Myrna & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Dorothy Bourassa & Eileen M. Fava, for Women’s Bar Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.          BUDD, J.  In this case we consider whether a mother[3] has the right to intervene in an eviction action brought by a landlord against the mother’s husband and their young children as the named defendants where, although she is not a named tenant on the lease, she has lived with her family in the apartment throughout the tenancy and alleges domestic violence in the home.  We conclude that she may intervene both on her own behalf and on behalf of her children.[4] Background.  This case is before us on the mother’s appeal from the denial, by a judge of the Housing Court, of the her motion to intervene in a summary process action brought by Beacon Residential Management LP (Beacon), the agent of the apartment owner, Georgetowne Homes Two, L.L.C. (Georgetowne Homes) (collectively, landlord).  We recite relevant allegations from the mother’s motion to intervene and proposed answer, as supplemented by the testimony at the hearing before the motion judge.[5] In October, 2009, the mother, together with her husband, R.P., and their son, moved into a federally regulated and subsidized apartment in the Hyde Park section of Boston; the apartment was owned by Georgetowne Homes.[6]  Initially both the mother and R.P. signed the lease.  Soon thereafter the landlord informed them that the Federal government would not subsidize the rent due to the mother’s immigration status; thereafter, the couple removed the mother from the lease.[7]  At that […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 14, 2017 at 11:13 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Beacon Towers Condominium Trust v. Alex (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-005-16)

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   SJC-11880   BEACON TOWERS CONDOMINIUM TRUST  vs.  GEORGE ALEX.       Suffolk.     October 5, 2015. – January 7, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Arbitration, Attorney’s fees.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 14, 2013.   The case was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     J. Mark Dickison (Ryan A. Ciporkin with him) for the defendant. Mark A. Rosen for the plaintiff.     GANTS, C.J.  Under G. L. c. 251, § 10, attorney’s fees may not be awarded in arbitration proceedings “[u]nless otherwise provided in the agreement to arbitrate.”  The issue presented in this case is whether an arbitration panel applying the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA rules), having found that the arbitration agreement did not authorize an award of attorney’s fees, nonetheless may award attorney’s fees based on its finding that “substantially all of the defenses were wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith.”  The appellant, George Alex, contends that the arbitration panel may award attorney’s fees in these circumstances for either of two reasons:  first, because AAA rule 47(a) [1] authorizes an arbitrator to “grant any remedy or relief that the arbitrator deems just and equitable and within the scope of the agreement of the parties”; or second, because AAA rule 47(d)(ii) provides that an arbitrator may award attorney’s fees if “it is authorized by law,” and the award of attorney’s fees in these circumstances is authorized by G. L. c. 231, § 6F.  We conclude that an arbitrator lacks the authority to award attorney’s fees based on a finding that all the claims or defenses were wholly insubstantial, frivolous, and not advanced in good faith unless the parties have agreed that an arbitrator may award attorney’s fees in these circumstances.  We therefore affirm the Superior Court judge’s order vacating the arbitration panel’s award of attorney’s fees.      Background.  The appellee, Beacon Towers Condominium Trust (trust), is the unit owners’ organization for the Beacon Towers Condominium (condominium), an entity created pursuant to G. L. c. 183A, § 17.  The condominium is comprised of three adjacent buildings in the Back Bay section of Boston, with the addresses of 479, 481, and 483 Beacon Street.  The board of […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 7, 2016 at 4:41 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Beacon South Station Associates, LSE v. Board of Assessors of Boston (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-048-14)

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       13‑P‑739                                        Appeals Court   BEACON SOUTH STATION ASSOCIATES, LSE[1]  vs.  BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF BOSTON. No. 13‑P‑739. Suffolk.     February 12, 2014.  ‑  May 14, 2014. Present:  Kafker, Milkey, & Sullivan, JJ.     Taxation, Abatement, Exemption, Leased property, Real estate tax:  abatement, exemption.  Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.  Boston.  Contract, Lease of real estate.  Real Property, Lease.       Appeal from a decision of the  Appellate Tax Board.     Anthony M. Ambriano for the defendant. Stephen H. Oleskey for the plaintiff.       KAFKER, J.  The principal issue in this case is whether certain real estate in Boston owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and leased to a private, for-profit entity was exempt from taxation pursuant to G. L. c. 161A, § 24, in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.[2]  The property in question is the South Station Headhouse (Headhouse), which the MBTA leases to Beacon South Station Associates, LSE, also known as EOP-South Station, LLC (EOP).  The Headhouse consists of an enclosed concourse through which the public passes to access MBTA and Amtrak train platforms, an underground subway connection, office and retail space, a surface facility and parking area, and the surrounding sidewalks.  The real estate taxes assessed on the Headhouse were $ 1,439,974.76 in 2009, and $ 1,135,463.55 in 2010.  EOP filed challenges to the 2009 and 2010 fiscal year assessments on the property with the board of assessors of Boston (assessors), and then appealed to the Appellate Tax Board (board) following the assessors’ refusal to abate the taxes.  The board ruled that G. L. c. 161A, § 24, “expressly exempted the property of the MBTA from taxation, whether or not leased for business purposes,” and granted the abatements.  The assessors appealed. On appeal, the assessors’ primary argument is that the board erred in its conclusion, and the § 24 exemption did not apply to the Headhouse at all because EOP, a private entity, leased the Headhouse from the MBTA and operated it for profit in the tax years in question.  Alternatively, the assessors argue that even if the Headhouse was not subject to a blanket assessment for the years in question, EOP could be taxed on the tenant improvements made to the property because EOP owned these improvements according to the terms of the lease, and they were therefore not property of the MBTA.  Examination of G. L. c. 161, § 24, as […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 14, 2014 at 8:09 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Welfare Reform Bill Introduced on Beacon Hill

State Senate Democrats have introduced a new bill this week intended at reforming the Massachusetts welfare system, including forcing applicants to prove they have searched for employment through a state program. According to Boston.com, the bill is aimed at shaking up what Senate President Therese Murray called a “stagnant” system. And the Senate expects to act quickly with a vote coming Thursday. Boston.com reported the bill would also force adult welfare recipients to use EBT cards with “photographic identity.” Penalties of perjury could be imposed on recipients who use a false identity. In a statement, Republican Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr said the bill “reflects a comprehensive approach that seeks to transition recipients away from dependence on welfare programs and towards sustainable economic independence.” However, Tarr said that while the bill addresses issues of fraud and abuse, it “does not contain additional reforms that were offered during Senate budget deliberations.” How would you like to see the state’s welfare system reformed? Let us know in the comments below. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 19, 2013 at 9:29 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,