Drummer Boy Homes Association, Inc. v. Britton, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-043-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11969 DRUMMER BOY HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. CAROLYN P. BRITTON & another.[1] Middlesex. January 7, 2016. – March 29, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Condominiums, Common expenses. Real Property, Condominium. Lien. Mortgage, Priority. Practice, Civil, Standing, Attorney’s fees. Civil actions commenced in the Concord Division of the District Court Department on August 8, 2007; February 6, 2008; and October 6, 2008. After consolidation, the case was heard by Peter J. Kilmartin, J., on a motion for summary judgment, and a motion to alter and amend the judgment was also heard by him. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Thomas O. Moriarty (Jennifer L. Barnett with him) for the plaintiff. Michael A.F. Johnson, of the District of Columbia (Rhiannon A. Campbell with him), for Federal Housing Finance Agency & others, amici curiae. Randy A. Britton, pro se. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Alan E. Lipkind & Elizabeth Brady Murillo for Avidia Bank & others. Henry A. Goodman, Ellen A. Shapiro, Charles A. Perkins, Jr., Scott J. Eriksen, & David R. Chenelle for Community Associations Institute. Clive D. Martin & Diane R. Rubin for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc. Stephen C. Reilly & Jennifer E. Greaney for Bank of America, N.A. SPINA, J. At issue in this case is whether G. L. c. 183A, § 6, permits an organization of unit owners to establish multiple contemporaneous priority liens on a condominium unit by filing successive legal actions to collect unpaid monthly common expense assessments (common expenses).[2] We conclude that the statute allows for such liens. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division of the District Court,[3] which reached a contrary conclusion.[4] 1. Background. Over the last ten years, the parties in this case have been involved in protracted and contentious litigation concerning parking rights at a condominium complex. Our recitation of the factual background and procedural history encompasses only those matters that relate to the specific issues now before this court. Drummer Boy Condominium II, which consists of twelve individual units, is one of nine condominiums comprising Drummer Boy Green in Lexington. In the aggregate, the nine condominiums have approximately 150 units. The defendant, Carolyn […]
Britton v. Board of Bar Examiners (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-074-15)
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 SJC-11703 RANDY A. BRITTON vs. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. April 30, 2015. Board of Bar Examiners. Attorney at Law, Admission to practice. On May 12, 2006, Randy A. Britton applied for admission to the Massachusetts bar, and he took and passed the written bar examination in July of that year. Based on information in his application, including his responses to questions concerning his employment history and involvement in litigation, and the pendency of his application for admission to the Connecticut bar, the Board of Bar Examiners (board) interviewed Britton and then stayed further investigation pending a final determination on the Connecticut application. After Britton withdrew that application, the board resumed its investigation, appointed special counsel to assist in the investigation, and thereafter conducted a hearing to inquire whether Britton “is of good moral character and sufficient acquirements and qualifications” to warrant his admission to the bar. G. L. c. 221, § 37. See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.1, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992). Britton was the sole witness at the hearing. The board determined that he was not qualified for admission and recommended that the petition be dismissed. S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992). Britton petitioned the county court for a hearing on his application, raising a variety of constitutional, statutory, and other challenges to the board’s decision. After a hearing, a single justice issued a very thorough memorandum in which he carefully addressed and rejected each of Britton’s challenges. The single justice thus denied Britton’s application and dismissed his petition. We affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the single justice. 1. Facts. In his application, Britton disclosed that he had been “wrongfully terminated” by two employers, and that he had brought multiple lawsuits involving separate incidents against former employers, attorneys, police officers, and a media outlet alleging, among other things, wrongful termination, violation of civil rights, defamation, breach of contract, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. In addition, he reported that his application for admission to the Connecticut bar had been pending since 2004. The board’s investigation revealed additional involvement with the legal system and other matters, which he had failed to disclose in his application. a. Failures to disclose. In support of his application, Britton submitted three letters of recommendation. One of those letters was from an attorney […]
Drummer Boy Homes Association, Inc. v. Britton, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-145-14)
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 12-P-1761 Appeals Court DRUMMER BOY HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. CAROLYN P. BRITTON & another.[1] No. 12-P-1761. Middlesex. March 3, 2014. – November 7, 2014. Present: Trainor, Brown, & Meade, JJ. Condominiums, Common expenses. Real Property, Condominium. Lien. Mortgage, Priority. Civil actions commenced in the Concord Division of the District Court Department on August 6, 2007; February 6, 2008; and October 6, 2008. After consolidation, the case was heard by Peter J. Kilmartin, J., on a motion for summary judgment, and a motion to alter and amend the judgment was also heard by him. Thomas O. Moriarty (Katherine G. Brady with him) for the plaintiff. Randy A. Britton, pro se. Henry A. Goodman, Ellen A. Shapiro, Merle R. Hass, Charles A. Perkins, Jr., & Gary M. Daddario, for Community Associations Institute, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Stephen C. Reilly & Jennifer E. Greaney, for Bank of America, N.A., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. BROWN, J. The plaintiff, Drummer Boy Homes Association, Inc. (Association), appeals from a decision and order of the Appellate Division of the District Court in the Association’s consolidated actions against the owners of a condominium unit to recover unpaid common expenses. The Appellate Division ruled that, pursuant to G. L. c. 183A, § 6, the Association’s statutory lien for those expenses was prior to the first mortgage on the defendants’ unit only to the extent of amounts due for the six months preceding the institution of the first of the Association’s three consolidated lawsuits, and not for the three successive six-month periods preceding each suit. The defendants, Carolyn P. Britton and Randy Britton, appearing pro se, cross-appeal, claiming the judgment is void due to misnomer of the plaintiff.[2] We affirm. 1. Background. We summarize the undisputed facts and procedural history from the Appellate Division’s July 9, 2010, opinion, supplemented from the record. The Association provides for the common operation of a condominium complex in Lexington known as Drummer Boy Green. The defendants, owners of a unit in the complex, withheld payment of their monthly fees for common expenses in connection with a dispute with the Association over certain parking rules and associated fines. Pertinent here, the Association filed an action in the District Court on July 31, 2007, to recover the unpaid common expenses and to establish a […]