Posts tagged "Residences"

South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. v. Moynahan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-054-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-209                                        Appeals Court   SOUTH BOSTON ELDERLY RESIDENCES, INC.  vs.  GERALD MOYNAHAN.     No. 16-P-209.   Suffolk.     December 1, 2016. – May 9, 2017.   Present:  Milkey, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Housing.  Summary Process.  Landlord and Tenant, Eviction, Rent, Repairs, Habitability, Reprisal against tenant, Consumer protection, Quiet enjoyment.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, Abatement, Damages.  Damages, Breach of implied warranty of habitability.       Summary Process.  Complaint filed in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on February 4, 2013.   The case was heard by Jeffrey M. Winik, J.     Joseph Ross (Ellen Rappaport-Tanowitz also present) for the tenant. W. Paul Needham for the landlord.     MILKEY, J.  The defendant, Gerald Moynahan, rents a small apartment from the plaintiff, South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. (landlord).  In this summary process action, Moynahan retained possession, which is no longer at issue.  The remaining disputes concern his counterclaims.  A Housing Court judge found that the landlord committed a breach of the warranty of habitability with respect to two different problems with the apartment.  One was a recurring moisture problem that became so bad at one point that mushrooms were growing in the carpeting.  The other was the lack of ventilation due to inaccessible windows.  However, for various reasons that the judge explained in a detailed memorandum of decision, Moynahan received only minor rent abatement damages, and his claim brought pursuant to G. L. c. 93A was dismissed.  The judge also concluded that the landlord had presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that its efforts to evict Moynahan were in retaliation for his reporting the sanitary code violations at the apartment.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for additional proceedings. Background.  In November, 2007, Moynahan moved into unit 13 of an elderly housing complex that the landlord owns in the South Boston neighborhood of Boston.  The building had just been renovated, and Moynahan was the first tenant to move into unit 13 after the renovation.  This ground-floor apartment totals approximately 453 square feet in size.  Because of the sloping topography of the site, part of the unit is subterranean.  Unit 13 has long suffered from moisture and related mold problems.  The specific progression of these problems is important to resolving this case, and we therefore turn to reviewing that history in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 10, 2017 at 7:22 pm

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

South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. v. Moynahan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-054-17)

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-209                                        Appeals Court   SOUTH BOSTON ELDERLY RESIDENCES, INC.  vs.  GERALD MOYNAHAN.     No. 16-P-209.   Suffolk.     December 1, 2016. – May 9, 2017.   Present:  Milkey, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Housing.  Summary Process.  Landlord and Tenant, Eviction, Rent, Repairs, Habitability, Reprisal against tenant, Consumer protection, Quiet enjoyment.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, Abatement, Damages.  Damages, Breach of implied warranty of habitability.       Summary Process.  Complaint filed in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on February 4, 2013.   The case was heard by Jeffrey M. Winik, J.     Joseph Ross (Ellen Rappaport-Tanowitz also present) for the tenant. W. Paul Needham for the landlord.     MILKEY, J.  The defendant, Gerald Moynahan, rents a small apartment from the plaintiff, South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. (landlord).  In this summary process action, Moynahan retained possession, which is no longer at issue.  The remaining disputes concern his counterclaims.  A Housing Court judge found that the landlord committed a breach of the warranty of habitability with respect to two different problems with the apartment.  One was a recurring moisture problem that became so bad at one point that mushrooms were growing in the carpeting.  The other was the lack of ventilation due to inaccessible windows.  However, for various reasons that the judge explained in a detailed memorandum of decision, Moynahan received only minor rent abatement damages, and his claim brought pursuant to G. L. c. 93A was dismissed.  The judge also concluded that the landlord had presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that its efforts to evict Moynahan were in retaliation for his reporting the sanitary code violations at the apartment.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for additional proceedings. Background.  In November, 2007, Moynahan moved into unit 13 of an elderly housing complex that the landlord owns in the South Boston neighborhood of Boston.  The building had just been renovated, and Moynahan was the first tenant to move into unit 13 after the renovation.  This ground-floor apartment totals approximately 453 square feet in size.  Because of the sloping topography of the site, part of the unit is subterranean.  Unit 13 has long suffered from moisture and related mold problems.  The specific progression of these problems is important to resolving this case, and we therefore turn to reviewing that history in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 9, 2017 at 9:55 pm

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

South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. v. Moynahan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-188-15)

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   15-P-319                                        Appeals Court   SOUTH BOSTON ELDERLY RESIDENCES, INC.  vs.  GERALD MOYNAHAN. No. 15-P-319. Suffolk.     November 2, 2015. – December 15, 2015.   Present:  Agnes, Sullivan, & Blake, JJ. Practice, Civil, Summary Process, Appeal, Dismissal of appeal, Assembly of record.  Summary Process.  Rules of Appellate Procedure.   Summary process.  Complaint filed in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on February 4, 2013.   A motion to dismiss the appeal was heard by Jeffrey M. Winik, J.     A. Joseph Ross for the tenant. W. Paul Needham for the landlord.      BLAKE, J.  Following the entry of judgment in a summary process action in the Boston Division of the Housing Court, the defendant tenant, Gerald Moynahan, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.  More than one year later, the plaintiff landlord, South Boston Elderly Residences, Inc. (SBER), moved to dismiss the appeal, citing Moynahan’s delay in filing the trial transcript with the court.  The motion was allowed, and this appeal followed.  We reverse. 1.  Procedural background.  On October 28, 2013, Moynahan’s notice of appeal relating to the underlying judgment was filed with the court.  On November 25, 2013, Moynahan through counsel (counsel) ordered a copy of the recording of the trial, which the court received on December 2, 2013, and so notified counsel that day.  On January 21, 2014, counsel retrieved the copy and sent it to be transcribed.  A dispute arose between the transcriber and counsel as to who would file the transcript with the court.  The transcriber ultimately refused to file the transcript, contrary to Mass.R.A.P. 8(b)(3)(iv), as appearing in 388 Mass. 1106 (1983).  On February 18, 2014, the transcription was completed and delivered to counsel.  Rather than filing the transcript when he received it from the transcriber, counsel decided to wait until after he recovered from a scheduled surgery to file it.[1]  Counsel eventually filed the transcript with the court on December 12, 2014.  On December 17, 2014, SBER filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for undue delay pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 9(c), as amended, 417 Mass. 1601 (1994), and Mass.R.A.P. 10(c), as amended, 417 Mass. 1602 (1994).  After a hearing, a judge allowed the motion, on the ground that counsel had committed inexcusable neglect by purposely delaying the filing of the transcript to control the timing of the appeal.  Moynahan filed a timely notice […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 15, 2015 at 9:17 pm

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

Residences at Cape Ann Heights Condominium Association v. Halupowski, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-032-13)

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       12‑P‑1689                                       Appeals Court   RESIDENCES AT CAPE ANN HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION  vs.  BRIAN HALUPOWSKI & others.[1]     No. 12‑P‑1689. Essex.     December 11, 2012.  ‑  February 21, 2013. Present:  Kafker, Milkey, & Agnes, JJ.   Condominiums, Common expenses.  Real Property, Condominium.  Lien.  Practice, Civil, Dismissal.  Jurisdiction, Superior Court, In rem.  Superior Court, Jurisdiction.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 12, 2011.   An appeal from a judgment of dismissal was heard by Green, J., in the Appeals Court, and the case was reported by him to the Appeals Court.     Gary M. Daddario for the plaintiff.     MILKEY, J.  The plaintiff is the owners’ association of a residential condominium located in Gloucester.  It brought this action to enforce a statutory lien on one of the condominium’s units.  The basis of the lien was $ 3,759.55 in unpaid common expenses.  Concluding that the association was unlikely to recover more than $ 25,000, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed the action without prejudice.  See G. L. c. 212, § 3A(b).  The association appealed pursuant to G. L. c. 212, § 3A(c), and the single justice reserved and reported the matter without decision to a full panel of this court.  We reverse. Discussion.  Chapter 183A of the General Laws governs the creation and administration of condominiums.  Pursuant to § 6 of that chapter, the condominium’s common expenses are to be assessed against all units in the condominium in proportion to the units’ interest in the condominium’s common areas, and “[t]he organization of unit owners shall have a lien on a unit for any common expense assessment levied against that unit from the time the assessment becomes due.”  G. L. c. 183A, § 6(a)(i), as amended by St. 1992, c. 400, § 7.  These assessments are levied against the units themselves, and constitute “covenants running with the land.”  Trustees of the Prince Condominium Trust v. Prosser, 412 Mass. 723, 725 (1992).  The lien is enforceable through “a civil action brought in the superior court for the county where [the condominium] lies or in the district court in the judicial district where [the condominium] lies.”  G. L. c. 254, § 5, as amended by St. 2010, c. 350, § 7.  See G. L. c. 183A, § 6(c).  The outcome of such a suit, if successful, is an order for the sale of the unit, subject to the procedures outlined in G. L. c. 254, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 21, 2013 at 6:31 pm

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