Posts tagged "Real"

Buffalo Water 1, LLC v. Fidelity Real Estate Company, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-103-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   SUFFOLK, ss.                                                                                   SUPERIOR COURT                                                                                                              SUCV2017-1584-BLS 2                  BUFFALO WATER 1, LLC Plaintiff   vs.   FIDELITY REAL ESTATE COMPANY, LLC Defendant   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS   This is an action challenging an independent appraisal of property as provided by an agreement between the parties, two sophisticated entities with experience in owning and leasing real estate.  The plaintiff, Buffalo Water 1, LLC (Buffalo) is the owner of the property, located at 7 Water Street in downtown Boston (the Property).   The defendant Fidelity Real Estate Company LLC (Fidelity) occupied the Property under a long term lease with an option to purchase the Property in the final year of the lease as set forth in an Option Agreement.    The Option Agreement sets the purchase price at 95 percent of the “fair market value” (FMV) or $ 16,275,000, whichever is greater.  If the parties could not agree upon the FMV, the Option Agreement set forth the specific appraisal process that the parties were to follow.   Fidelity timely exercised its option to purchase and, with the parties unable to agree to the FMV,   complied with the appraisal process, which included an independent appraisal. The Verified Complaint attacks the validity of the independent appraisal, contending among other things that the entity that employed the individual appraiser did not disclose a prior business relationship that it had with Fidelity. The case is now before the Court on Fidelity’s Motion to Dismiss.  In support, it relies on the Massachusetts common law rule that severely limits the scope of judicial review regarding appraisals contractually authorized by the parties.   Pursuant to that rule, the Court may invalidate an appraisal only where the appraiser plainly exceeded the scope of his authority or where the appraisal was the result of “fraud, corruption, dishonesty or bad faith.”  Nelson v. Maiorana, 395 Mass. 87, 89 (1985), citing Eliot v. Coulter, 322 Mass. 86, 91 (1947).  “The premise of the rule of restricted reviewability is that the contracting parties’ assignment of a valuation to an appraisal embodies their shared desire for finality.”  State Room, Inc. v. MA-60 State Assoc., LCC, 84 Mass.App.Ct. 244 249 (2013). Applying that rule to the allegations in the Verified Complaint, this Court agrees with the defendant that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.   Rule 12(b)(6), Mass.R.Civ. P. The independent appraisal was performed by Robert Skinner. Skinner worked for Cushman & Wakefield (Cushman), which was selected in compliance with the terms of the Option Agreement.  The Engagement Letter pursuant to which Cushman was hired stated that the appraisal would be performed in accordance with certain standards, including the Code […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 3, 2017 at 10:18 pm

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

Halbach, et al. v. Normandy Real Estate Partners, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-165-16)

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   15-P-1500                                       Appeals Court   ERIC HALBACH & another[1]  vs.  NORMANDY REAL ESTATE PARTNERS & others.[2]     No. 15-P-1500.   Suffolk.     September 12, 2016. – November 18, 2016.   Present:  Kafker, C.J., Milkey, & Blake, JJ.     Practice, Civil, Summary judgment.  Negligence, One owning or controlling real estate, Use of way, Duty to prevent harm, Pedestrian.  Way, Public:  defect.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 17, 2012.   The case was heard by Robert L. Ullmann, J., on a motion for summary judgment.     Michael B. Bogdanow (John J. Carroll, Jr., with him) for the plaintiffs. Matthew Kirouac for the defendants.     BLAKE, J.  Plaintiff Eric Halbach (Halbach) suffered serious injuries when he fell as a result of uneven pavement on a public sidewalk adjacent to a commercial building owned by defendant 100 & 200 Clarendon Street, LLC (Clarendon), and operated, leased, and maintained by one or more of the remaining defendants (collectively, Normandy).  Halbach and his wife, Kathleen Halbach, subsequently filed a complaint alleging that the defendants had a duty to either repair the sidewalk or warn pedestrians and the city of Boston (city) of the hazard.  Concluding that no such duty exists, a judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  We agree, and affirm. Background.  The following undisputed facts are taken from the summary judgment record.  On June 4, 2009, Halbach was walking on Clarendon Street in the city, near the John Hancock garage (garage).  He tripped and fell on uneven payment on a part of the sidewalk directly adjacent to the garage, sustaining significant injuries as a result.[3]  The sidewalk where Halbach fell is owned by the city.  At the time of the fall, the commercial property adjacent to the sidewalk was owned by Clarendon and maintained by Normandy.  After the incident, Normandy hired a company to grind down the uneven payment at a cost of $ 798. On February 17, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court, which was amended on October 4, 2013.  The amended complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent in their “ownership, control, maintenance and/or inspection” of the sidewalk adjacent to the garage by their “failure to ensure a safe pedestrian walkway” and their “failure to keep the area of the walkway free from defects and conditions […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 18, 2016 at 5:34 pm

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

Red Door Real Estate, LLC v. Karwashan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-146-16)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 14-03235-BLS 2 RED DOOR REAL ESTATE, LLC, Plaintiffs vs. SOUSAN KARWASHAN, RED DOOR PROPERTIES, INC., and RED REAL ESTATE, INC. Defendants FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF JUDGMENT In this action, plaintiff Red Door Real Estate, LLC (Red Door) alleges that the defendants have infringed upon its state service mark and otherwise engaged in unfair business practices. The five count Amended Complaint seeks damages as well as injunctive relief. The matter came before this Court for jury waived trial in August 2016. Based on that evidence this Court finds to be credible together with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, I makes the following findings and rulings. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff Red Door is a limited liability company that has its principal place of business in Quincy, Massachusetts. It was founded by Madeline Cheney in January 2010. Red Door is a real estate brokerage firm that represents buyers and sellers in commercial and residential real estate transactions. In addition to Cheney, it employs between 12 and 17 other brokers. The focus of Red Door’s business is in the South Shore, with most of its residential sales occurring in Quincy and its environs. Its total sales volume in 2015 was $ 23 million. 2 In July 2010, Red Door applied for and obtained state registration of a service mark.1 Cheney, who holds a bachelor’s degree in marketing, was the person who designed the logo that was part of that mark. The logo consists of black and red writing with the word “Red Door” appearing in block letters above the word “Real Estate” written in cursive. An angular drawing suggesting a roof and a door is positioned above the word “Red” in the logo. The registration for this service mark was renewed in 2015. It appears on all of Red Door’s marketing and advertising materials. It is also used on its internet site and on each broker’s business card. Shortly after Red Door opened its business, Cheney learned that there was another real estate agency located in Milton by the name of Red Door Realty. Cheney did not disclose this on her application for a service mark, even though the application expressly sought such information. In any event, the owner of Red Door Realty did not object to Cheney’s use of the Red Door title. In fact, the two companies have actually been co-brokers on one deal. There was no evidence presented at trial that there was any confusion among customers of either firm as a result of the name similarity even though they are both in the same line of business and operate in adjoining communities. That there has […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 12, 2016 at 12:35 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Memorial Day Traffic in Real Time

South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 27, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , ,

Memorial Day Weekend Traffic in Real Time

South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 25, 2013 at 10:28 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,

Memorial Day Weekend Traffic in Real Time

If you’re on a mobile device, click here to view the map. When you’re done getting gas and packing the car, check out the live results from MapQuest above to see what’s standing between you and the start of your three-day weekend.  Mapquest scans for parade routes, ongoing construction, block parties and traffic jams. If your route is green, your good. If it’s red, you may be headed into a line of rubbernecking fools. Good luck!  South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 24, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,