Posts tagged "Homeowner’s"

Mac’s Homeowners Association, et al. v. Gebo, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-141-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   16-P-451                                        Appeals Court   MAC’S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION & another[1]  vs.  JAMES GEBO & others.[2]     No. 16-P-451.   Essex.     February 2, 2017. – November 9, 2017.   Present:  Green, Meade, & Agnes, JJ.     Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Consumer protection case.  Manufactured Housing Community.  Cooperative Housing.  Consumer Protection Act, Standing, Unfair or deceptive act.     Civil actions commenced in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on June 24 and July 1, 2014.   After consolidation, a motion to dismiss was heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J., and entry of separate and final judgment was ordered by him.     Stephen A. Wasserman for the plaintiffs. Joseph E. Kelleher, III, for the defendants.     AGNES, J.  The plaintiffs, cooperative housing associations whose members (hereinafter homeowners) own mobile homes located in Mac’s Trailer Park (Mac’s Park) in Peabody, initiated this action claiming that the defendants (hereinafter developers) committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of G. L. c. 93A, § 2, when they appeared unannounced and declared that they were purchasing Mac’s Park and that the homeowners would have to move or vacate.  The developers’ actions are alleged to have been premature, given that the owner of Mac’s Park failed to provide the homeowners with the statutorily mandated notice of sale and opportunity to exercise a right of first refusal, see G. L. c. 140, § 32R, and unlawful, in that, by law, the homeowners’ tenancies could only be terminated for certain specific reasons, none of which were applicable, see G. L. c. 140, § 32J.  As a result, the plaintiffs allege that the homeowners put their lives “on hold,” were unable to sell or lease their mobile homes, and suffered extreme emotional distress.  Acting on a motion to dismiss filed by the developers, however, a Housing Court judge held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  See Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974).  This appeal followed, and upon the required de novo review, we conclude that the factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint are sufficient to plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief under G. L. c. 93A.  See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008). Background.  The following facts are derived from the plaintiffs’ verified complaint.  Mac’s Park is a “manufactured housing community,” see G. L. c. 140, § 32F, as appearing in St. 1991, c. […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 9, 2017 at 8:53 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc., et al. v. Related Corporate V SLP, L.P., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-143-16)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIV. NO. 14-3807 BLS2 HOMEOWNER’S REHAB, INC., and MEMORIAL DRIVE HOUSING, INC. Plaintiffs vs. RELATED CORPORATE V SLP, L.P. and CENTERLINE CORPORATE PARTNERS V L.P., Defendants ORDER This matter having come before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, the Motion is ALLOWED and it is ORDERED that plaintiffs are restrained and enjoined from selling or transferring the property located at 808-812 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pending the outcome of the defendants’ appeal of the Judgment in this matter or upon further Order of this Court. The Court issues this Order based on the representation of defense counsel at the hearing that: 1) the time period for Plaintiff Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. to exercise any rights under the Right of Frist Refusal and Option Agreement dated July 10, 1997 is tolled for the period that this litigation has been and remains pending; and 2) the parties will cooperate and make reasonable attempts to expedite the appeal of this Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. _________________________________ Janet L. Sanders Justice of the superior Court Dated: October 18, 2016 Full-text Opinions

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 10, 2016 at 5:39 am

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