Posts tagged "Trustees"

Trustees of the Cambridge Point Condominium Trust v. Cambridge Point, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-014-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12327   Trustees of the Cambridge Point Condominium Trust  vs.  Cambridge Point, LLC, & others.[1]       Middlesex.     October 5, 2017. – January 19, 2018.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.     Condominiums, By-laws, Management, Common area.  Real Property, Condominium.  Public Policy.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 3, 2014.   A motion for partial summary judgment was heard by Rosalind H. Miller, J.; a motion for reconsideration was considered by her; and motions to dismiss were heard by Peter B. Krupp, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Edmund A. Allcock for the plaintiffs. John F. Gleavy for CDI Commercial Development, Inc., & another. David Aleksic, for Frank Fodera & another, was present but did not argue. David T. Keenan, for Anahid Mardiros, was present but did not argue. Henry A. Goodman & Ellen A. Shapiro, for Community Associations Institute, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Cailin M. Burke, Julie B. Heinzelman, Diane R. Rubin, Thomas O. Moriarty, & Kimberly A. Bielan, for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc., & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     GANTS, C.J.  In this action, a condominium trust’s board of trustees has filed suit against the developers of the condominium for damages arising from various design and construction defects in the condominium’s common areas and facilities.  The condominium bylaws, however, provide that the trustees cannot bring any litigation involving the common areas and facilities against anyone other than a unit owner unless they first obtain the consent of at least eighty per cent of the unit owners.  The issue on appeal is whether this bylaw provision is void, either because it violates the Condominium Act (act), G. L. c. 183A, or because it contravenes public policy.  We conclude that it is void because it contravenes public policy.[2] Background.  In 2007, Cambridge Point, LLC, as the declarant of a predominantly residential forty-two-unit condominium in Cambridge, filed in the Middlesex South District registry of deeds a master deed, a declaration of trust, and the bylaws of the Cambridge Point Condominium Trust (trust).  The trust’s board of trustees (trustees) is responsible for administering the affairs of the trust.  Among the powers and duties committed to the trustees is the authority under § 1(o) of […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 19, 2018 at 11:29 pm

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

GPH Cohasset, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of Reservations, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-076-14)

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‑1304                                       Appeals Court   GPH COHASSET, LLC, & another[1]  vs.  TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS & others.[2] No. 13‑P‑1304. Suffolk.     April 2, 2014.  ‑  June 25, 2014. Present:  Grainger, Rubin, & Hanlon, JJ.   Zoning, Special permit, Conditions, By‑law.  Real Property, Conservation restriction.  Environment, Noise.  Evidence, Disclosure of evidence, Expert opinion.  Witness, Expert.  Practice, Civil, Discovery.       Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on March 25, 2011.   The case was heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J.     Damon M. Seligson for the plaintiffs. Michael K. Murray for Trustees of Reservations & another. Kimberly M. Saillant for planning board of Cohasset.     GRAINGER, J.  The plaintiffs, GPH Cohasset, LLC; and GGNSC Cohasset, LLC (collectively, Golden Living), appeal from a judgment of the Land Court affirming a decision of the defendant planning board of Cohasset (board) to grant defendant Conservation Wind Partners, LP (Conservation Wind), a special permit to erect a wind turbine on property owned by defendant Trustees of Reservation (trustees).  On appeal, Golden Living asserts that (1) the trustees and Conservation Wind did not satisfy their burden of proof to obtain approval of the special permit and site plan, (2) the wind turbine creates public safety concerns, (3) the judge erred by precluding Golden Living’s expert witnesses from testifying, and (4) the judge erred by declining to compel the production of the wind turbine’s operating manual. Background.  We recite the facts as found by the judge following a bench trial, reserving certain details for our discussion of specific issues.  On October 28, 2010, Conservation Wind filed an application for a special permit and site plan approval to erect a wind turbine on certain property (locus) owned by the trustees.  The locus consists of two large parcels of land, which together comprise approximately 314 acres within two adjacent reservations known as Whitney and Thayer Woods (WTW) and Turkey Hill Reservation (Turkey Hill).  The towns of Cohasset and Hingham (collectively, towns) own much of the land surrounding the locus, which, along with the locus, is open to the public for recreational use. The towns granted conservation restrictions to the trustees, limiting the use of the town-owned land in Turkey Hill (the municipal restrictions).  The municipal restrictions each contain several prohibited uses, including the construction of any permanent structure, cutting or removing trees, and any surface […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 25, 2014 at 9:06 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,