Posts tagged "Family"

L.B., et al. v. Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-060-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11892   L.B. & another[1]  vs.  CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT & others.[2] Suffolk.     October 5, 2015. – May 4, 2016.   Present:  Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Probate Court, Guardian.  Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel.  Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel.  Practice, Civil, Assistance of counsel.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on May 6, 2015.   The case was reported by Botsford, J.     Laura Williams Gal (Christina L. Paradiso with her) for L.B. & another. Norah E. Kane for the minor children of L.B. Jo Ann Shotwell Kaplan, Assistant Attorney General, for Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department. Deborah W. Kirchwey for the minor child of C.L. Jamie Ann Sabino, Susan R. Elsen, Mary K. Ryan, & Melanie V. Woodward, for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Inc., & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Andrew L. Cohen, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Susan M. Finnegan, Sandra J. Badin, & Geoffrey A. Friedman, for S.D., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Richard M. Page, Jr., for Boston Bar Association, amicus curiae, joined in a brief.     SPINA, J.  In Guardianship of V.V., 470 Mass. 590 (2015), we held that a parent whose minor child is the subject of a guardianship petition pursuant to G. L. c. 190B, § 5-206, and who cannot afford counsel has a right to have counsel appointed and to be so informed.  The issue in this case is whether a parent also has a right to counsel if and when the parent petitions to have the guardian removed or to have the terms of the guardianship modified.  We conclude that a parent does have a right to counsel for certain of those types of petitions.  We also offer some guidance to the Probate and Family Court, where these private guardianships occur, for the development of rules and policies to implement this right to counsel. Procedural history.  The plaintiffs, L.B. and C.L., are the mothers of minor children for whom guardians were appointed, in 2012 and 2013 respectively, pursuant to G. L. c. 190B, § 5-206.  They commenced this action in the county court in 2015, challenging a written policy of the Chief Justice of the Probate and […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 4, 2016 at 2:44 pm

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

Verrill Farms, LLC v. Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-141-14)

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-1747                                       Appeals Court   VERRILL FARMS, LLC  vs.  FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 13-P-1747. Middlesex.     May 2, 2014. – November 4, 2014.   Present:  Trainor, Fecteau, & Carhart, JJ.     Insurance, Business owner’s policy, Amount of recovery for loss, Construction of policy.  Contract, Insurance.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 17, 2010.   The case was heard by Kimberly S. Budd, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Barry P. Fogel for the plaintiff. William A. Schneider for the defendant.      TRAINOR, J.  The plaintiff, Verrill Farms, LLC (Verrill Farms), owns and operates a retail farm store in Concord.  The defendant, Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company (Farm Family), issued a “Businessowners Advantage Insurance Policy” (policy) effective August 4, 2008, to August 4, 2009, to Verrill Farms.  On September 20, 2008, Verrill Farms suffered a fire loss to its farm store.  Within two days of the fire, Verrill Farms reopened its business at alternate locations at reduced capacity.  Within another month, the business had resumed nearly full capacity in temporary facilities at nearby locations.  After the fire and during the process of restarting the business at the alternate locations, no employees were laid off.  All employees who remained on the payroll were involved in operations that allowed Verrill Farms to maintain its business and generate income. Verrill Farms submitted a claim under the policy for loss of business income, based on its loss of net income (net profit or loss) in the year after the fire, which it believed the policy covered under the loss of business income coverage.  Farm Family paid a sum considerably less than the claim made by Verrill Farms, based on its interpretation of what expenses can be included in a calculation of net profit or loss in order to determine loss of business income under the policy.[1]  Farm Family describes the question as whether it has to “pay” Verrill Farms for the cost of its ordinary payroll expense during the period of restoration, beyond the sixty-day limit contained in the policy.  See note 7, infra.  The Superior Court judge declared that Farm Family did not have to pay the cost of ordinary payroll beyond the sixty-day limit and granted summary judgment in Farm Family’s favor.  This, however, is not what Verrill Farms was seeking to recover and […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 4, 2014 at 3:51 pm

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

How One Family Spent Under $100 on a Theme Park Trip

What happens when a family of four tries to manage expenses at a theme park? South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 16, 2013 at 9:54 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,

What Sold in the South End: Piedmont Single Family for $1.8M

See what sold in the South End – and for how much – in the last week. South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 24, 2013 at 12:37 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,

Boston Strangler Victim’s Family: “People Really Did Care”

As police announced Thursday morning their  "99.9 percent" certainty that suspected Boston Strangler Albert DeSalvo was responsible for the death of 19-year-old Beacon-Hill resident Mary Sullivan in 1964, her family shared their overwhelming relief South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 11, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,

RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson, LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-121-13)

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‑11371   RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP  vs.  BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP, & others.[1]       Suffolk.     March 4, 2013.  ‑  July 10, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Privileged Communication.  Evidence, Privileged communication.  Attorney at Law, Attorney‑client relationship, In‑house counsel.  Partnership, Attorneys.  Rules of Professional Conduct.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 13, 2012.   A motion for a protective order was considered by Thomas P. Billings, J.   A proceeding for interlocutory review was heard in the Appeals Court by Gary S. Katzmann, J.  The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Richard E. Briansky (Amy B. Hackett with him) for the plaintiff. Thomas E. Peisch (Erin K. Higgins, Andrew R. Dennington, & Russell F. Conn with him) for Burns & Levinson, LLP, & others. Jared M. Barnes, for Boston Bar Association, amicus curiae, was present but did not argue.   The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Roy A. Bourgeois & Benjamin C. Rudolf for Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. Laurel G. Bellows, of Illinois, & Holly M. Polglase & Matthew C. Kalin for American Bar Association. Richard M. Zielinski, Timothy J. Dacey, & Gary M. Ronan for Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society, Inc.     GANTS, J.  The issue presented on appeal is whether confidential communications between law firm attorneys and a law firm’s in-house counsel concerning a malpractice claim asserted by a current client of the firm are protected from disclosure to the client by the attorney-client privilege.  We conclude that they are, provided that (1) the law firm has designated an attorney or attorneys within the firm to represent the firm as in-house counsel, (2) the in-house counsel has not performed any work on the client matter at issue or a substantially related matter, (3) the time spent by the attorneys in these communications with in-house counsel is not billed to a client, and (4) the communications are made in confidence and kept confidential.  Because these criteria were met in this case, we affirm the judge’s order allowing the defendant law firm and its attorneys to invoke the attorney-client privilege to preserve the confidentiality of these communications.[2]   Background.  The plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP (RFF), made a $ 1.4 million commercial loan to […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 11, 2013 at 7:12 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson, LLP, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-121-13)

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‑11371   RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP  vs.  BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP, & others.[1]       Suffolk.     March 4, 2013.  ‑  July 10, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Privileged Communication.  Evidence, Privileged communication.  Attorney at Law, Attorney‑client relationship, In‑house counsel.  Partnership, Attorneys.  Rules of Professional Conduct.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 13, 2012.   A motion for a protective order was considered by Thomas P. Billings, J.   A proceeding for interlocutory review was heard in the Appeals Court by Gary S. Katzmann, J.  The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Richard E. Briansky (Amy B. Hackett with him) for the plaintiff. Thomas E. Peisch (Erin K. Higgins, Andrew R. Dennington, & Russell F. Conn with him) for Burns & Levinson, LLP, & others. Jared M. Barnes, for Boston Bar Association, amicus curiae, was present but did not argue.   The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Roy A. Bourgeois & Benjamin C. Rudolf for Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers. Laurel G. Bellows, of Illinois, & Holly M. Polglase & Matthew C. Kalin for American Bar Association. Richard M. Zielinski, Timothy J. Dacey, & Gary M. Ronan for Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society, Inc.     GANTS, J.  The issue presented on appeal is whether confidential communications between law firm attorneys and a law firm’s in-house counsel concerning a malpractice claim asserted by a current client of the firm are protected from disclosure to the client by the attorney-client privilege.  We conclude that they are, provided that (1) the law firm has designated an attorney or attorneys within the firm to represent the firm as in-house counsel, (2) the in-house counsel has not performed any work on the client matter at issue or a substantially related matter, (3) the time spent by the attorneys in these communications with in-house counsel is not billed to a client, and (4) the communications are made in confidence and kept confidential.  Because these criteria were met in this case, we affirm the judge’s order allowing the defendant law firm and its attorneys to invoke the attorney-client privilege to preserve the confidentiality of these communications.[2]   Background.  The plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP (RFF), made a $ 1.4 million commercial loan to […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 11, 2013 at 7:12 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

What Sold in the South End: West Newton St. Single Family for $2.75M

Realtors: Add your photos of recently sold homes to this gallery! It's easy—just sign into your Patch account (or sign into Patch using your Facebook account). Click the "Upload Photos and Videos" button and follow the directions. The proper South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 28, 2013 at 3:07 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,

What Sold in the South End: West Newton St. Single Family for $2.75M

Realtors: Add your photos of recently sold homes to this gallery! It’s easy—just sign into your Patch account (or sign into Patch using your Facebook account). Click the “Upload Photos and Videos” button and follow the directions. The property’s address, sale price, listing agent and other details can be included in the photo’s caption. We’ve provided a sampling of five home sales this week. Look at the photo gallery or the easy-to-scan chart below. Don’t forget to check out our Real Estate section. Looking to buy a home? Check out our updated list of homes for sale in your neighborhood or this list of upcoming open houses. Neighborhood Address Details Sale Price List Price Listing Agent Charlestown 42 Eighth Street #1509 Condo, 2 Beds/2 Baths, 1308 sq. ft. $ 520,000 $ 534,000   Century 21 Elite Realty, Jennifer Schneider North End 102 Commercial Street #1 Condo, 2 Beds, 1 Bath, 925 sq. ft. $ 480,000 $ 489,000 Otis & Ahearn – 142 Commercial, Jeffrey Goldman Beacon Hill   45 Province Street #710 Condo, 1 Bed/1.5 Baths, 1316 sq. ft. $ 965,250 $ $ 949,000 RESIS, R. Wayne Lopez Back Bay   184 Marlborough #7 Condo, 3 Beds/2.5 Baths, 1912 sq. ft. $ 2,697,500 $ 2,695,000 Coldwell Banker, Ellen Meyers South End 172 W Newton St Single Family, 6 Beds/4 Baths,  4136 sq. ft $ 2,750,000 $ 2,695,000 Keller Williams Realty International – Boston – Back Bay, Ken Snyder “Sold!” is a weekly column featuring the latest real estate sales in and around Boston. Photos and information compiled using MLS data, courtesy of Century 21 North Shore and Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 26, 2013 at 11:52 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,

How Much Money Does it Take to Raise a Family in Boston?

In Massachusetts, a family of four with two school-aged children needs to earn nearly $ 68,976 to make ends meet without public or private assistance, according to a study released Thursday by the Crittenton Women’s Union. In Boston, that number is slightly higher—$ 69,252. This amount includes rent, utilities, food, transportation, healthcare and personal needs. According to the Boston Globe, the gap between earnings and cost of living is increasing because of increased costs, no raises at work and a higher required level of education. Although the cost of living for a single-mother-headed household is high, they are not the only ones having trouble. Crittendon Women’s Union’s study noted four in 10 two-parent homes also struggle to succeed in the state. “You get into what our families sometimes call the gerbil wheel,” Elisabeth Babcock, president of Crittenton, told the Boston Globe. “They’re working at low-paying jobs. Minimum wage doesn’t begin to cover the costs of supporting a family, and the only way they can earn enough is by getting more education. “But they don’t know how they can manage to do that when they’re already working and taking care of their kids.” Do you think the cost of living in Boston, according to the report, is accurate? Tell us in the comments.  SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,