COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss.SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTOPHER E. BURNS
HUGH R. TAYLOR and LISA FRANKS
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In early 2014, plaintiff Christopher Burns and defendants Hugh Taylorand Lisa Franks formed an investment advisory firm which they called Taylor Wealth Management Partners. Although they planned on entering into a formal written agreement that would define the terms of their business arrangement, they began their joint enterprise before they had agreed upon all of the terms and memorialized their agreement in a written contract. By December 2014, terms of their agreement were still being debated, theparties’ relationship hadsoured,and Taylor, with Franks’ consent and assistance, told Burns that he must leave the firm. Aggrieved by the termination, Burns filedthis action against Taylor and Franks, alleging that their actions constituted a breach of contract and a breach of fiduciary duty. The matter is now before the court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion is ALLOWED,in part,and DENIED,in part.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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
Suffolk. March 8, 2016. – October 11, 2016.
Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.
Easement. Real Property, Easement. Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Commission.
Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on June 9, 2010.
A motion for summary judgment was heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J., and the remaining issues were also heard by him.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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
COMMONWEALTH vs. RODRICK JAMES TAYLOR.
Suffolk. December 5, 2013. – August 29, 2014.
Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.
Homicide. Constitutional Law, Speedy trial. Practice, Criminal, Dismissal, Speedy trial, Discovery, Waiver, Argument by prosecutor.
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 28, 2006.
A motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial was heard by Stephen E. Neel, J., and the case was tried before him; a motion for postconviction relief, filed on April 28, 2011, was heard by Diane M. Kottmyer, J.
The construction at 8-10 Taylor Street will go on, decided the South End Landmarks Commission on Tuesday night.
The wooden home is only one of two in the South End. It has faced controversy in the neighborhood since construction started several weeks ago, had its stop work order lifted after the commission’s review. The stop work order had been imposed due to the homeowner and contractor’s decision to take down an extra wall during the demolition process. That demolished east wall will be rebuilt based on preservation’s standards, the commission decided.
“The mistake was that you didn’t call when the wall had to come down,” said commission chair Christie Gamp. “I can’t believe knowing the contentiousness of this project and the neighbors that that didn’t happen… It’s unbelievable for the neighbors and all we’ve worked for and to feel like we’re blindsided,” said Christie Gamp.
The following were the top articles on South End Patch from Jan. 29 to Feb. 1st, 2013:
The historic wooden house at 8-10 Taylor Street, built in 1899, was approved for renovations by all city agencies, but progress is currently stalled due to neighborhood concerns.
The original stop work order put on the 8-10 Taylor Street wooden house property was because of environmental and project concerns, neighbors say. Now, it’s related to an entirely different issue.
Boston Police arrested a man for allegedly selling heroin on Northampton Street on Monday.
A South End resident is looking for answers about 655 Tremont Street’s tree removal.
After residents reached out to question why several large trees were removed from the Tremont/W.Brookline Street corner, the Boston Parks Department provided its reasoning.
Imagine sitting in your home one morning and feeling the entire floor shake. That’s how Taylor Street resident Louane Hann was notified of the construction happening on her street last Tuesday.
“I was working from home, and all of a sudden, I felt the earth move,” she said. “There was a guy with a backhoe and a guy with a hose, and they were ripping the house down.”
Hann said neither she nor anyone else in the neighborhood was notified that construction would begin at the wooden house at 8-10 Taylor Street, and that it would involve demolition of the building.
“We get notices about someone getting a roof deck you can’t even see half the time, and no one got a notice about this,” she said. “It’s unbelievable.”
Couple the lack of notice with the complete surprise that the building, which neighbors thought had been approved for a renovation and addition, was being completely demolished. And the day of demolition left dust everywhere, debris on neighbors’ porches and properties, and even broke a window at a home next door, said nearby residents.
When Ramy Rizkalla bought his new home on Taylor Street, he knew it’d be a long road to renovation. That’s because the home, which he originally believed was built in the mid-1800s with original ornamentation and features and would be heavily protected by city agencies.
That was before he found out most of what you see on the home today was built in the 1970s.
“None of the windows, none of the ornamentation, none of the mouldings, none of it is original,” Rizkalla said. “All of that was added in the 70s and 80s.”
And therein lies the solution — and the problem. The renovations, which were approved over an 18-month process through the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Boston Landmarks Commission, and the South End Historical Society, were blocked this week due to neighborhood concerns.
“That’s one of the biggest problems – there really is a substantial misunderstanding of what people are looking at, and what is truly historic,” Rizkalla said. “We have all the necessary approvals but I think there’s been a need for clarification.”