Bennett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-007-18)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-0603-BLS1 TINA BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY and as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE OF DAVID BENNETT vs. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, individually and as successor by merger to LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., and GLOBAL PARTNERS, L.P. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS In this action the plaintiff, Tina Bennett, alleges claims for wrongful death and civil conspiracy against the defendants[1]. She brings these claims as the Personal Representative of the Estate of David Bennett (David and the Estate).[2] The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Ms. Bennett was appointed as the personal representative of the Estate under G.L. c. 190B, § 3-108 (4) of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC or the Code), and an appointment under that provision of the Code does not carry with it the authority to bring either a wrongful death action under G.L. c. 229, § 2 or a tort claim that belonged to the plaintiff’s decedent at the time of his death and had become an asset of the estate. [3] BACKGROUND FACTS The following facts are taken from the allegations of the plaintiff’s amended complaint, her petition for appointment as the personal representative of David’s estate (the Petition), and the Decree and Order on Petition for Late and Limited Formal Testacy and/or Appointment with respect to the Estate issued by the Worcester Probate and Family Court dated July 26 2017. David Bennett died on March 7, 2014. In the Petition, his residence is listed as 22 Roosevelt Dr., Southbridge, Massachusetts. Southbridge is a town in Worcester County. This action was first filed on February 22, 2017, although the plaintiff had not yet filed any process seeking appointment as the personal representative of the Estate by that date. On May 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a Petition for Late and Limited Formal Testacy and/or Appointment in the Worcester Probate and Family Court. On July 26, 2017, that Court issued a decree allowing the Petition and appointing the plaintiff the personal representative of the Estate pursuant to G.L. c. 190B, § 3-108(4). On August 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging her appointment as the personal representative of the Estate. DISCUSSION The issue presented by this case is one of first impression, both in Massachusetts and other states that have adopted the UPC: does a personal representative appointed with the limited authority provided by § 3-108(4) of the UPC have standing to bring tort actions that were the property of the deceased and are an asset of the estate and/or an action for wrongful […]
Reynolds v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Stow, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-144-15)
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-663 Appeals Court GREGORY REYNOLDS vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF STOW & another.[1] No. 14-P-663. Middlesex. January 13, 2015. – September 15, 2015. Present: Trainor, Vuono, Hanlon, JJ. Housing. Zoning, Board of appeals: decision; Low and moderate income housing; Comprehensive permit. Practice, Civil, Standing. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 23, 2010. The case was heard by Kenneth W. Salinger, J. Dennis A. Murphy (Daniel C. Hill with him) for the plaintiff. David S. Weiss (Elizabeth Levine with him) for Stow Elderly Housing Corporation. Barbara Huggins for zoning board of appeals of Stow. TRAINOR, J. The plaintiff appeals from a Superior Court judgment affirming a comprehensive permit issued pursuant to the Comprehensive Permit Act, G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23 (Act), by the zoning board of appeals (board) of Stow (town) to the Stow Elderly Housing Corporation (SEHC) for the construction of a low and moderate income elderly housing project. The plaintiff, a southeast abutter of the locus, contended, among other things, that the private wells on his and his neighbors’ properties will have elevated nitrogen levels due to the discharge into the waste disposal system designed for the locus and, therefore, it was unreasonable for the board to waive certain waste disposal limitations contained in the town bylaw. Stow, Mass., Zoning Bylaw (including amendments through May 3, 2010) (bylaw). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. 1. Background. a. Stow Elderly Housing Corporation and Plantation I. SEHC is a nonprofit corporation founded in 1981 for the primary purpose of developing, owning, and operating affordable housing. In 1983, SEHC obtained a comprehensive permit under the Act to construct Plantation Apartments I (Plantation I), a fifty-unit low-income senior apartment complex on a lot that is adjacent to the locus. Plantation I is served by a private well and a private septic system on the property. Although SEHC was the original owner and developer of Plantation I, in 2004, it transferred ownership of the buildings and granted a long-term lease of the land to Plantation Apartments Limited Partnership, while retaining the fee in the land. SEHC owns and controls the limited partnership’s general partner, and was the initial limited partner.[2] b. Plan for the locus. SEHC is under agreement to purchase an approximately two and one-half acre lot (locus) […]