» Hull

Posts tagged "Hull"

Board of Selectmen of the Town of Hull, et al. v. Healey (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-054-17)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00161 BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF HULL & THE TOWN MANAGER OF THE TOWN OF HULL vs. MAURA HEALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS In this action, plaintiffs Board of Selectmen of the Board of Hull and the Board Manager of the Board of Hull (collectively “the Board”) seek certiorari review under G. L. c. 249, §4, of a decision made by defendant Attorney General, Maura Healey (“the Attorney General”) that the Board violated Opening Meeting Law, G. L. c. 30A, §21(b)(3), by failing to publicly identify unions in collective bargaining disputes and a claimant in a matter in civil litigation prior to entering executive session to discuss strategy with respect to these matters. Before the Court are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Board seeks an order reversing the Attorney General’s decision and for declaratory relief, and the Attorney General seeks affirmation of her determination. In consideration of the parties’ memoranda of law and oral arguments, and for the reasons that follow, the Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is ALLOWED, the Attorney General’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, the Attorney General’s order that the Board amend its minutes reflecting the meetings in dispute is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Attorney General for further review consistent with this decision. The Town’s motion for further declaratory relief is DENIED. 2 FACTS Claims for judicial review of administrative agency proceedings are resolved through motions for judgment on the pleadings under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c). See Massachusetts Superior Court Standing Order 1-96, §4. The Court’s “review shall be confined to the record.” Id. at §5. “Such record ‘shall consist of … the entire proceedings.’” Id. at §2, quoting G. L. c. 30A, §14. The record in this case, and the relevant law, show the following. Plaintiff Board is a public body, and plaintiff Town Manager of the Town of Hull is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Town of Hull. Defendant Maura Healey is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Open Meeting Law, G. L. c. 30A, §§18-25 (“OML”), requires that, “[e]xcept as provided in section 21, all meetings of a public body shall be open to the public.” G.L. c. 30A, §20(a). Section 21 of the OML allows “[a] public body [to] meet in executive session” for an enumerated purpose, which includes “[t]o discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares.” G. […]

Nantasket Beachfront Condominiums, LLC v. Hull Redevelopment Authority (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-058-15)

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 14-P-222 Appeals Court NANTASKET BEACHFRONT CONDOMINIUMS, LLC vs. HULL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. No. 14-P-222. Plymouth. November 7, 2014. – June 5, 2015. Present: Rapoza, C.J., Milkey, & Hanlon, JJ. Contract, Performance and breach, Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Damages, Provision for liquidated damages, Termination. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Damages, Waiver. Redevelopment Authority. Administrative Law, Conflict of interest. Conflict of Interest. Public Employment, Unethical conduct. State Ethics Commission. Waiver. Damages, Breach of contract, Liquidated damages. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 8, 2012. The case was heard by Robert C. Cosgrove, J., on motions for summary judgment. Brian K. Bowen for the plaintiff. Denise A. Chicoine (Edward S. Englander with her) for the defendant. MILKEY, J. In 2004, plaintiff Nantasket Beachfront Condominiums, LLC (Nantasket) and defendant Hull Redevelopment Authority (authority) entered into a contract for the purchase and development of certain land in Hull. Under that “LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT” (LDA), Nantasket was to purchase the land, construct seventy-two units of housing, and develop a new public park. Subsequently, the proposed project encountered robust neighborhood opposition, and this in turn led to significant delays in the anticipated closing. Eventually, the authority terminated the LDA and notified Nantasket that it was retaining as liquidated damages $ 857,500 in deposits that Nantasket had made. This action ensued. In a comprehensive and thoughtful decision, a Superior Court judge ruled in the authority’s favor on summary judgment. He concluded that Nantasket indisputably stood in breach of the LDA, and that the authority was within its rights to terminate the agreement and to retain the deposits. On Nantasket’s appeal, we affirm, albeit on somewhat different grounds. Background.[1] The parties execute the LDA. In order to spur the development of twelve acres of land that it owned, the authority in October of 2003 issued a detailed “Request for Proposals” (RFP). According to the RFP, the property “provides the transition between the [State-owned] . . . Nantasket Beach Reservation and a major residential area of the Town of Hull along Nantasket Avenue.” The RFP set forth a preferred development scenario in which approximately three-quarters of the land would be developed into “primarily passive public open space,” with the rest (approximately three acres) developed as “residential dwelling units, or other uses, as […]

Hull Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-116-14)

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-1825 Appeals Court HULL RETIREMENT BOARD vs. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD & others.[1] No. 13-P-1825. September 16, 2014. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board. Municipal Corporations, Retirement board, Police. Police, Retirement. Public Employment, Paid leave, Accidental disability retirement, Retirement. Retirement. The Hull retirement board (board) appeals from a Superior Court judgment affirming a decision of the contributory retirement appeal board (CRAB) upholding a division of administrative law appeals (DALA) magistrate’s determination requiring the board to amend the effective retirement date of defendant David Leary. We affirm. 1. Background. Leary was a police officer in the town of Hull (town). On November 19, 2001, he sustained an injury on the job and was placed on accidental injury leave with full pay. See G. L. c. 41, § 111F, as amended through St. 1990, c. 313. Leary remained on § 111F leave until April 15, 2003, when the chief of police (chief) removed him from paid injury leave status and placed him on an unpaid leave of absence. Leary believed the chief’s action did not comply with the law, and sought to have the town reinstate his § 111F benefits. In the meantime, in July, 2003, Leary applied for accidental disability retirement under G. L. c. 32, § 7. The board approved Leary’s application on January 30, 2004. His disability retirement allowance became effective as of April 15, 2003, the last day that Leary received compensation in the form of his § 111F benefits. Notwithstanding his application for retirement and the subsequent approval of that application, Leary continued to seek payment of § 111F benefits from the town, specifically for the period between April 15, 2003, and January 30, 2004. An agreement for payment initially was reached but unraveled when, on the advice of defendant public employee retirement administration commission (PERAC), the board refused to change Leary’s effective retirement date from April 15, 2003, to January 30, 2004. In 2006, Leary filed suit, seeking enforcement of his agreement with the town. In March, 2008, Leary and the town entered into a settlement agreement, later reduced to a judgment, whereby the town would pay Leary $ 44,424.47 in additional § 111F benefits to cover the period from April 15, 2003, to January 30, 2004. Pursuant to the agreement, the funds were placed in an escrow account, with release to Leary “pending the outcome of Leary’s efforts to get the […]