Posts tagged "Homes"

Gold Star Homes, LLC v. Darbouze, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-049-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   14-P-1177                                       Appeals Court   GOLD STAR HOMES, LLC  vs.  MARCUS DARBOUZE & another.[1] No. 14-P-1177. Essex.     March 2, 2016. – May 11, 2016.   Present:  Hanlon, Sullivan, & Massing, JJ.     Summary Process, Appeal.  Housing Court.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, Pendency of prior action.  Mortgage, Foreclosure.  Real Property, Mortgage, Deed.       Summary Process.  Complaint filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on September 16, 2013.   The case was heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J.     John L. McGowan for the defendants. John P. Miller (Jennifer H. O’Brien with him) for the plaintiff.     MASSING, J.  The defendants, Marcus Darbouze (Marcus) and Marie R. Darbouze (Marie)[2] (together, the Darbouzes), appeal from a judgment, after a summary process trial in the Housing Court, awarding possession of their residence in Billerica (the property) to the plaintiff, Gold Star Homes, LLC (Gold Star).  The Darbouzes assert that the Housing Court judge should not have permitted the trial to go forward during the pendency in the Land Court of a related, prior action in which Marie sought a declaration invalidating the foreclosure sale.  On the merits, the Darbouzes contend that the judge erred by rejecting their defenses to summary process:  that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), the entity that conducted the foreclosure sale, was not the mortgage holder, and that MERS’s postforeclosure conveyance of the property to Gold Star by foreclosure deed was ineffective.  We affirm.[3] Background.  1.  The mortgage and foreclosure.  The evidence presented at the summary process trial established the following facts.[4]  On January 20, 2006, Marie purchased the property for $ 345,000, financed entirely by two loans.  She borrowed $ 276,000 of the purchase price from Fremont Investment & Loan (Fremont), granting a first mortgage to MERS, “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.”  (The details of the loan for the remainder of the purchase price, secured by a second mortgage, are immaterial to the subsequent events and proceedings.)  Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), as trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-1, purchased the loan later in 2006 as part of a pooling agreement. On January 7, 2008, Deutsche Bank initiated proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501 et seq. (2006) (servicemembers act) in the Land Court prior to commencing foreclosure on […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 11, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

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 […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 29, 2016 at 4:28 pm

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

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 […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 7, 2014 at 3:26 pm

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

K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. v. Prosky, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-091-14)

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     SJC‑11449   K.G.M. CUSTOM HOMES, INC.  vs.  STEPHEN J. PROSKY & others.[1]     Bristol.     February 4, 2014.  ‑  May 29, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.   Contract, Sale of real estate, Performance and breach, Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Damages, Specific performance, Provision for liquidated damages.  Real Property, Sale, Purchase and sale agreement, Specific performance.  Damages, Breach of contract, Liquidated damages, Attorney’s fees.  Practice, Civil, Election of remedies, Attorney’s fees.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 21, 2004.   The case was heard by Thomas F. McGuire, Jr., J.   After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Michelle N. O’Brien for the plaintiff. Edmund A. Allcock (Haley Byron with him) for the defendants.     CORDY, J.  On October 12, 1999, the defendants, Stephen J. Prosky, Karen Monteiro, and Joan Stormo (Proskys),[2] executed a purchase and sale agreement with the plaintiff, K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. (K.G.M.).  The Proskys agreed to sell approximately 45.7 acres of land in Norton to K.G.M. for the purpose of developing residential homes, with the price to be determined by the number of “approved and permitted buildable house lot[s],” and the closing set for twenty-one days “after all final approvals are granted and the expiration of any and all appeal periods.”  In or about August, 2004, after a five-year process, during which time K.G.M. worked to gain approval for its development plan, and after a dispute over the calculated sale price, Peter T. Clark, the Proskys’ attorney, falsely told one of K.G.M.’s attorneys that the Proskys had received a higher offer for the property and informed him that K.G.M. should calculate its damages based on the liquidated damages provision of the purchase and sale agreement.  K.G.M. filed suit for specific performance.  While the suit was pending, K.G.M. received final approval for its plan, and the parties met at the office of K.G.M.’s real estate attorney, Henry J. Sousa, Jr., in an attempt to close on the sale of the property.  Due to Clark’s withholding of information in the days leading up to the closing, as well as his behavior at the closing, the parties were unable to close the sale. After a jury-waived trial, a Superior […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 29, 2014 at 5:57 pm

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

South End’s Animal Rescue League Still Needs Homes for 400 Pets

The Animal Rescue League of Boston adopted out 800 pets this summer, but is still 400 short of its summertime goal. South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 27, 2013 at 3:52 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

New South End Homes for Sale this Week

More South End Real Estate Listings > SOUTH END PATCH: < South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 27, 2013 at 7:28 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,

New South End Homes For Sale This Week

South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 26, 2013 at 12:09 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,

New South End Homes For Sale This Week

More South End Real Estate Listings >> South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 25, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,