Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., et al. v. Cedar Hill Retreat Center, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-046-17)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT SUCV2016-01432-BLS2 WILDLANDS TRUST OF SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS, INC. & JOHN AND CYNTHIA REED FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs vs. CEDAR HILL RETREAT CENTER, INC. & BALLOU CHANNING DISTRICT UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT This is an action seeking to enforce a Conservation Restriction imposed on real property located in Duxbury, Massachusetts (the Property). Plaintiffs are the Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc. (Wildlands Trust) and the John and Cynthia Reed Foundation (the Foundation). Plaintiffs allege that the current owner of the Property, the defendant Cedar Hill Retreat Center, Inc. (Cedar Hill), is engaging in commercial activities in violation of the Conservation Restriction. Also named as a defendant is the Ballou Channing District Unitarian Universalist Association, Inc. (Ballou Channing), the original owner of the Property and the Grantor of the Conservation Restriction. Plaintiffs allege that the Ballou Channing induced the Foundation into making a $ 3 million gift in return for Ballou Channing’s promise to create the Conservation Restriction and to use the Foundation’s donation to preserve the Premises in conformity with that restriction (the “Gift Agreement”). 2 This lawsuit was instituted on May 4, 2016. In their original Complaint, plaintiffs asserted the following counts against both defendants: breach of the Gift Agreement (Count I); breach of the Conservation Restriction (Count II); promissory estoppel (Count III); unjust enrichment (Count IV); and violation of Chapter 93A (Count V). The defendants filed motions to dismiss. On December 30, 2016, this Court allowed those motions in part. See Memorandum of Decision and Order dated December 30, 2016 (the 2016 Decision). As to Ballou Channing, this Court dismissed Count II because it no longer owned the Property that was subject to the Conservation Restriction. As to Cedar Hill, this Court dismissed Counts I, III and IV – those counts based on the Gift Agreement –because Cedar Hill was not a party to the Gift Agreement. Count V alleging a violation of Chapter 93A was dismissed as to both defendants. Six months later, plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert new claims against both defendants and to add back some claims that this Court had previously dismissed. Specifically, the Amended Complaint contains a new claim against both defendants based on the same allegations that were the basis of Counts I, III and IV of the original Complaint, but with a wrinkle: this new claim asserts a breach of what is described as a “Letter Agreement” between the defendants Ballou Channing and Cedar Hill. Plaintiffs say that they only learned of this Letter Agreement as a result of discovery in the case but now claim they are third party beneficiaries entitled […]
Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., et al. v. Cedar Hill Retreat Center, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-034-17)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT SUCV2016-01432-BLS2 WILDLANDS TRUST OF SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS, INC. & JOHN AND CYNTHIA REED FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs vs. CEDAR HILL RETREAT CENTER, INC. & BALLOU CHANNING DISTRICT UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION On July 13, 2017, the parties were before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery and the Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order. Defendants argued that the discovery sought was beyond the scope of what was at issue in this lawsuit and that the plaintiffs’ requests were unduly burdensome and amounted to harassment. This Court denied the motion from the bench, with only a brief explanation of its reasons by way of a margin note. Plaintiffs now move to reconsider and/or clarify this Court’s earlier ruling. Although initially skeptical of this request, this Court is now convinced that clarification is indeed required. Although plaintiffs are not entitled to the broad discovery they had originally sought (which was unnecessary and unduly burdensome), this Court was wrong to deny any discovery sought by their Motion to Compel. It is also apparent that the parties may have interpreted that earlier order almost as if it were a dispositive motion and that the discovery ruling meant that certain parts of plaintiffs’ Complaint were not properly before this Court. This Court did not anticipate or intend that and now wishes to correct that misimpression. The 2 Motion to Reconsider is therefore ALLOWED, with the following offered by way of explanation. This is an action seeking to enforce a Conservation Restriction (CR) imposed on real property located in Duxbury, Massachusetts (the Premises). The parties to the CR are the plaintiffs Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc. (Wildlands Trust) and the defendant Cedar Hill Retreat Center Inc., (Cedar Hill). In its Amended Complaint, 1 Wildlands Trust alleges that Cedar Hill is engaging in “commercial revenue generating activities…as well as other activities that are violative of the Conservation Restriction.” ¶ 7 of Amended Complaint; see also ¶48-50. In its Motion for a Protective Order (and again in opposing the Motion to Reconsider), Cedar Hill took the position that Wildlands Trust’s ability to complain of Cedar Hill’s activities on the Premises is far narrower – that is, that it is limited to a single event in September 8, 2012 when there was a wedding reception on the Premises. This did not involve a complaint that the Premises were being used to generate revenue. In denying the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, this Court was of the view that a single violation was enough to entitle the plaintiffs to the equitable relief they sought, so that discovery that went beyond the September […]
Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., et al. v. Cedar Hill Retreat Center, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-174-16)
-1- COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT SUCV2016-01432-BLS2 WILDLANDS TRUST OF SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS, INC. & JOHN AND CYNTHIA REED FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs vs. CEDAR HILL RETREAT CENTER, INC. & BALLOU CHANNING DISTRICT UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS This is an action seeking to enforce a Conservation Restriction imposed on real property located in Duxbury, Massachusetts (the Premises). Plaintiffs are the Wildlands Trust of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc. (Wildlands Trust) and the John and Cynthia Reed Foundation (the Foundation). Plaintiffs allege that the current owner of the land, defendant Cedar Hill Retreat Center, Inc. (Cedar Hill), is engaging in commercial activities in violation of the Conservation Restriction. Also named as a defendant is the Ballou Channing District Unitarian Universalist Association, Inc. (Ballou Channing), the original owner of the land and the Grantor of the Conservation Restriction. Plaintiffs allege that the Foundation made a $ 3 million gift to Ballou Channing in exchange for Ballou Channing’s agreement to create the Conservation Restriction and to use the Foundation’s donation to preserve the Premises in conformity with that restriction (the “Gift Agreement”). The case is now before this Court on the defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ballou Channing moves to dismiss all -2- counts asserted against it; Cedar Hill moves to dismiss some but not all of the counts against it. The motions raise difficult questions, some of which would benefit from discovery and cannot be decided at this early stages in the case. Still, there are certain claims that are not supported by the facts alleged in the Complaint or the applicable law, and which must therefore be dismissed, for reasons set forth below. BACKGROUND The Complaint contains the following allegations which, for purposes of these motions, are assumed to be true. The Foundation is a private charitable foundation created by John and Cynthia Reed. The Reeds are abutters to the Premises, which consists of 12.23 acres of land. Ballou Channing is a nonprofit religious corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 180 of the General Laws. Ballou Channing acquired the Premises in 1980 through a Deed of Gift that imposed certain restrictions on its use. Located on the Premises are a building and improvements that have historically been known as the Cedar Hill Retreat Center. Ballou Channing would periodically permit the center to be used by its member congregations. In 2007, the Reeds learned that the restrictions imposed on the Premises through the Deed of Gift were to expire within the next couple of years. Thee Reeds wished to preserve the Premises in conformity with those original restrictions; negotiations with Ballou Channing […]
Welfare Reform Bill Introduced on Beacon Hill
State Senate Democrats have introduced a new bill this week intended at reforming the Massachusetts welfare system, including forcing applicants to prove they have searched for employment through a state program. According to Boston.com, the bill is aimed at shaking up what Senate President Therese Murray called a “stagnant” system. And the Senate expects to act quickly with a vote coming Thursday. Boston.com reported the bill would also force adult welfare recipients to use EBT cards with “photographic identity.” Penalties of perjury could be imposed on recipients who use a false identity. In a statement, Republican Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr said the bill “reflects a comprehensive approach that seeks to transition recipients away from dependence on welfare programs and towards sustainable economic independence.” However, Tarr said that while the bill addresses issues of fraud and abuse, it “does not contain additional reforms that were offered during Senate budget deliberations.” How would you like to see the state’s welfare system reformed? Let us know in the comments below. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-083-13)
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‑11166 CITY OF WORCESTER vs. COLLEGE HILL PROPERTIES, LLC, & another[1] (and four companion cases[2]). Worcester. January 7, 2013. ‑ May 15, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Lodging House. Contempt. Practice, Civil, Contempt. Words, “Lodgings.” Civil actions commenced in the Worcester Division of the Housing Court Department on January 13, 2010. The cases were heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J., and complaints for contempt were also heard by him. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Gary S. Brackett for the defendants. Ann S. Refolo, Assistant City Solicitor, for the plaintiff. Philip S. Lapatin & Nathaniel F. Hulme, for Greater Boston Real Estate Board, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. The defendants own two-family and three-family rental properties in Worcester. They leased dwelling units in these properties to groups of four unrelated adult college students. Each such dwelling unit contained a living room and dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. The inspectional services department of the city of Worcester (city) determined that, where such a dwelling unit is occupied by four or more unrelated adults, “not within the second degree of kindred” to each other, the dwelling unit is a “lodging” for purposes of G. L. c. 140, §§ 22-32 (lodging house act or act), and that each of the defendants was accordingly operating a lodging house without a license. See G. L. c. 140, § 24. This case presents the question whether such dwelling units as occupied constitute lodgings so as to render the subject properties lodging houses under the lodging house act. We conclude that the dwelling units are not lodgings and the properties are not lodging houses under the act. 1. Background. The essential facts are undisputed. The defendants own two‑family and three‑family rental properties in the city.[3] The properties contain dwelling units commonly referred to as apartments, consisting of a living room and dining room, a kitchen, a bathroom, and an unspecified number of bedrooms. Each apartment at issue here was leased to four local college students for a twelve‑month period. The students, all adults, were not related to each other or to the defendant lessors.[4] The students sharing an apartment each had access to the entire apartment and the use of all […]