POAH-MPTTA Joint Venture, LLC, et al. v. New Mass Pike Towers Limited Partnership, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-027-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. 16-03282-BLS1 POAH – MPTTA JOINT VENTURE, LLC & another1 vs. NEW MASS PIKE TOWERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP & others2 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, POAH – MPTTA Joint Venture, LLC (Joint Venture) and Mass Pike Towers Tenants Association, Inc. (MPTTA), filed this action for declaratory judgment against defendants, New Mass Pike Towers Limited Partnership, Trinity Financial, Inc., and Trinity Mass Pike Towers, Inc (referred to collectively as “Trinity”). Trinity moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ “Second Substitute Complaint” (Complaint) for lack of jurisdiction under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), failure to state a claim under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and for failure to add indispensable parties under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) and Mass. R. Civ. P. 19. Count I is brought solely by the Joint Venture, and Count II is brought solely by MPTTA. In both counts, plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment relating to the potential purchase and sale of Mass Pike Towers. For the reasons stated below, Trinity’s motion to dismiss is allowed. 1 Mass Pike Towers Tenants Association, Inc. 2 Trinity Mass Pike Towers, Inc., as general partner of New Mass Pike Towers Limited Partnership, and Trinity Financial, Inc. BACKGROUND The facts as revealed by the Complaint are as follows. Mass Pike Towers is a two hundred unit subsidized housing complex in the Chinatown section of Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiff MPTTA is a 501(c)(3) charitable association of the tenants of Mass Pike Towers. Plaintiff Joint Venture is a Massachusetts limited liability company, consisting of MPTTA and Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc. (POAH).3 In this action, the Joint Venture seeks a declaration for specific enforcement of an option it allegedly received from the City of Boston to purchase Mass Pike Towers. As an alternative ground for relief, MPTTA asserts in Count II that there is an actual controversy between the parties as to whether MPTTA should be allowed to exercise the option on its own behalf. Plaintiffs request that the court issue a declaration of their rights. In 1999, defendant, Trinity Financial, Inc., a local for-profit development company, submitted proposals seeking approval and support from the City of Boston, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development to purchase Mass Pike Towers. Trinity proposed to purchase Mass Pike Towers for a below-market price of $ 6.1 million. The appraised value of the property was $ 7.8 million. Trinity proposed to purchase Mass Pike Towers without contributing any cash itself. Trinity also proposed to receive a developer’s fee of $ 3.4 million. Public resources were […]
Beacon Towers Condominium Trust v. Alex (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-005-16)
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 SJC-11880 BEACON TOWERS CONDOMINIUM TRUST vs. GEORGE ALEX. Suffolk. October 5, 2015. – January 7, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Arbitration, Attorney’s fees. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 14, 2013. The case was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. J. Mark Dickison (Ryan A. Ciporkin with him) for the defendant. Mark A. Rosen for the plaintiff. GANTS, C.J. Under G. L. c. 251, § 10, attorney’s fees may not be awarded in arbitration proceedings “[u]nless otherwise provided in the agreement to arbitrate.” The issue presented in this case is whether an arbitration panel applying the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA rules), having found that the arbitration agreement did not authorize an award of attorney’s fees, nonetheless may award attorney’s fees based on its finding that “substantially all of the defenses were wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith.” The appellant, George Alex, contends that the arbitration panel may award attorney’s fees in these circumstances for either of two reasons: first, because AAA rule 47(a) [1] authorizes an arbitrator to “grant any remedy or relief that the arbitrator deems just and equitable and within the scope of the agreement of the parties”; or second, because AAA rule 47(d)(ii) provides that an arbitrator may award attorney’s fees if “it is authorized by law,” and the award of attorney’s fees in these circumstances is authorized by G. L. c. 231, § 6F. We conclude that an arbitrator lacks the authority to award attorney’s fees based on a finding that all the claims or defenses were wholly insubstantial, frivolous, and not advanced in good faith unless the parties have agreed that an arbitrator may award attorney’s fees in these circumstances. We therefore affirm the Superior Court judge’s order vacating the arbitration panel’s award of attorney’s fees. Background. The appellee, Beacon Towers Condominium Trust (trust), is the unit owners’ organization for the Beacon Towers Condominium (condominium), an entity created pursuant to G. L. c. 183A, § 17. The condominium is comprised of three adjacent buildings in the Back Bay section of Boston, with the addresses of 479, 481, and 483 Beacon Street. The board of […]
Loring Towers Associates v. Furtick v. Boston Housing Authority (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-033-14)
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 13‑P‑799 Appeals Court LORING TOWERS ASSOCIATES[1] vs. MELVIN FURTICK; BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, third-party defendant. No. 13‑P‑799. Essex. December 3, 2013. ‑ March 27, 2014. Present: Grainger, Brown, & Carhart, JJ. Summary Process. Practice, Civil, Summary process, Complaint, Parties. Boston Housing Authority. Due Process of Law, Housing. Summary process. Complaint filed in the Salem Division of the District Court Department on April 23, 2012. Following transfer to the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department, a motion to dismiss a third‑party complaint was heard by David D. Kerman, J. Michael J. Louis & Angela Marcolina for Boston Housing Authority. Laura Gallant (James Breslauer with her) for Melvin Furtick. BROWN, J. Melvin Furtick, a physically disabled and mentally ill senior citizen, has been a participant in the Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, better known as “section 8,” for over thirty years.[2] The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) terminated Furtick’s housing assistance benefits, a protected property interest, in violation of his due process rights. Such a result cannot be countenanced by any court of law. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Housing Court in this summary process litigation restoring Furtick’s housing benefits retroactively to the date of the unlawful termination. Facts. Except where noted, the following facts are undisputed. On January 17, 2012, the leased housing division of the BHA sent a letter addressed to Furtick at his subsidized apartment in Salem, notifying him of the proposed termination of his housing assistance benefits based upon his failure to attend two section 8 voucher recertification meetings scheduled for November 28, 2011, and December 22, 2011. See § 13.6.2 of the BHA Administrative Plan for Section 8 Programs (revised December 6, 2011) (BHA administrative plan). The BHA letter informed Furtick that he had the right to an informal hearing regarding the proposed termination before the BHA’s department of grievances and appeals as long as he requested a hearing within twenty days. See id. at § 13.6.3. When Furtick failed to respond within the twenty-day appeal period, the BHA, by letter dated February 7, 2012, and mailed to his apartment, terminated Furtick’s subsidy effective March 31, 2012. As Furtick was in jail during that time, he had no actual knowledge of any of this.[3] Upon his release, Furtick returned to his apartment and discovered that […]