Posts tagged "Summit"

AM Properties, LLC v. J&W Summit Ave, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-024-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   15-P-1343                                       Appeals Court   AM PROPERTIES, LLC  vs.  J&W SUMMIT AVE, LLC.     No. 15-P-1343.   Suffolk.     May 17, 2016. – March 8, 2017.   Present:  Cypher, Blake, & Henry, JJ.     Adverse Possession and Prescription.  Real Property, Adverse possession.       Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on September 27, 2013.   The case was heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Joseph L. Bierwirth, Jr. (Ryan P. McManus also present) for the defendant. Ann M. Sobolewski for the plaintiff.     HENRY, J.  The plaintiff, AM Properties, LLC (AM), brought an action in the Land Court seeking to (1) establish title by adverse possession to a strip of land (the strip) that is part of the property of the defendant, J&W Summit Ave, LLC (J&W), and (2) permanently enjoin J&W from interfering with rights in an easement for passage over J&W’s property (the passageway).  J&W counterclaimed, denying AM’s claim of title to the strip and asserting its own adverse possession claim to extinguish AM’s rights to the passageway.  The central issue in the case is whether AM is entitled to include, or “tack” on, an approximate six-year period of nonpermissive use of the strip by a tenant of a prior owner to satisfy the twenty-year requirement for a claim of adverse possession.  On cross motions for summary judgment, a Land Court judge answered this question in the affirmative and ruled in AM’s favor on all claims.  J&W has now appealed from that judgment. As is well established, a review of a summary judgment ruling is de novo, taking the facts, along with the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, in a light most favorable to the party against whom judgment is to enter.  See Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671, 676 (2007); Albahari v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brewster, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 245, 248 n.4 (2010).  To that end, we conclude that there is no genuine dispute of material fact[1] and that AM is entitled as a matter of law to tack on the prior period of tenancy to establish adverse possession.  Accordingly, we affirm. Background.  The following undisputed material facts are evident from the record.  A specialty food store named Bazaar International Gourmet (Bazaar) has operated on the AM property at 1432 and 1432A Beacon […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 8, 2017 at 5:58 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,