Meikle v. Nurse (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-057-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11859 GARTH MEIKLE vs. PATRICIA NURSE. Suffolk. November 5, 2015. – April 27, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Summary Process. Practice, Civil, Summary process, Counterclaim and cross-claim. Landlord and Tenant, Security deposit, Termination of tenancy, Eviction. Summary process. Complaint filed in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on June 11, 2014. The case was heard by MaryLou Muirhead, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Louis Fisher (Patricia Whiting with him) for the defendant. Garth Meikle, pro Se. Peter Vickery, for Worcester Property Owners Association, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Maureen McDonagh & Julia Devanthéry, for City Life/Vida Urbana, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. HINES, J. In this appeal we decide whether a tenant may assert a violation of the security deposit statute, G. L. c. 186, § 15B, as a defense to a landlord’s claim for possession in a summary process action brought under G. L. c. 239, § 1A. The issue arises from a Housing Court judge’s disposition of a summary process action brought by Garth Meikle, the landlord, against Patricia Nurse, the tenant. After a trial, the judge ruled that the tenant properly could assert a violation of the security deposit statute as a counterclaim for damages, but that a counterclaim on this basis is not a defense to the landlord’s claim for possession. The tenant appealed, arguing that the plain language of G. L. c. 239, § 8A, buttressed by its legislative history, establishes that a violation of the security deposit statute may be asserted as a defense to a landlord’s claim for possession and that the judge erred in rejecting this interpretation of the statute. We transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion.[1] We conclude that a violation of the security deposit statute is encompassed within the definition of “counterclaim or defense” in G. L. c. 239, § 8A, and that a counterclaim or defense on that basis may be asserted as a defense to a landlord’s possession in a summary process action under G. L. c. 239, § 1A. Therefore, we reverse the Housing Court judgment granting possession to the landlord and remand for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 239, § 8A, fifth par.[2] Background. We summarize the judge’s findings of fact, which we […]
Nurse v. Omega US Insurance, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-156-15)
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-653 Appeals Court KARL NURSE vs. OMEGA US INSURANCE, INC. No. 14-P-653. Suffolk. January 13, 2015. – October 5, 2015. Present: Trainor, Vuono, & Hanlon, JJ. Insurance, Coverage, Water damage. Contract, Insurance. Limitations, Statute of. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Declaratory proceeding, Statute of limitations, Commencement of action. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 28, 2011. The case was heard by Edward P. Leibensperger, J., on a motion for summary judgment. James M. Dunn for the plaintiff. Thomas M. Prokop for the defendant. VUONO, J. This case arises from the denial of coverage by the defendant, Omega US Insurance, Inc. (Omega[1]), for water damage to a multi-unit residence owned by the plaintiff, Karl Nurse. The damage is alleged to have been caused by a burst pipe which resulted from frigid weather. A judge of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Omega on the ground that Nurse’s action for declaratory relief and breach of contract was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in G. L. c. 175, § 99, Twelfth (the statute or § 99), and incorporated as a provision of the policy.[2] While there is no dispute that Nurse did not commence this action within two years of the date the loss occurred, he contends that his complaint was nevertheless timely because the so-called “discovery rule” applies to toll the statute of limitations period. We conclude that the discovery rule does not apply in these circumstances and, therefore, summary judgment was proper. Background. The material facts, in the light most favorable to Nurse, the nonmoving party, are as follows.[3] Nurse owns a three-unit residence (property or building) located at 294 Shawmut Avenue in Boston. The property was insured under a dwelling policy issued by Omega for the period from April 27, 2009, to April 27, 2010. The policy was subject to the requirements of G. L. c. 175, § 99, Twelfth, which sets forth standard terms applicable to all fire insurance policies in the Commonwealth including a two-year statute of limitations for any claims covered by such policies.[4] In December, 2009, the property was vacant except for ongoing construction work in the third-floor unit, which required that the plumbing supplying water to that unit remain active.[5] Both December 17 and December 18 were extremely cold days with high temperatures reported at […]
Boston Nurse Begins 26 Acts Of Kindness, Pt. 2; Urges Others to Join In
After the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., in December, in which a gunman killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Stephanie Zanotti of Charlestown, Mass., was inspired by the suggestion to complete 26 acts of kindness as a response. In the wake of the bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday, Zanotti decided it was time for Part Two of those 26 acts of kindness. “I am participating in 26 acts of kindness for the victims at the 26th mile of the Boston Marathon,” she wrote on her Facebook page. Using Facebook and Instagram, she is chronicling her acts and hoping to inspire others to do the same. “It’s forcing me to think about how you can make someone’s day a little lighter, a little brighter,” she said Saturday. She stresses the acts can be as simple as paying for the person’s cup of coffee behind you in line at your favorite coffee shop or dropping off some candy at your local fire department – both things she did during her Newtown acts. So far, Zanotti has completed two acts in this new cycle: she has promoted the sale of a T-shirt designed by a friend in which all proceeds will go to One Fund Boston. And she signed up her dog Lucy, a rescue dog with only three legs, in a dog therapy program. (The t-shirt and Lucy are pictured, right.) Zanotti is a nurse at Brigham & Women’s Hospital and has seen the power of therapy dogs for patients. Knowing that several of the bombing victims have had limbs amputated, Zanotti realized her dog in particular could provide special inspiration. She said she’s speaking out about her actions to raise awareness and, she hopes, to inspire others to follow suit. The realization that the bombings happened at the 26th mile and the parallel with Newtown’s 26 school victims was powerful to Zanotti. “Unfortunately, the ’26’ theme again,” she said. But at a time when so many people want to do something in response to the events of the past several days, Zanotti’s found a way to be both creative and kind. Are you doing something special in response to the bombings? Let us know in the comments section. South End Patch