Airport Fuel Services, Inc. v. Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-051-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DUKES COUNTY, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-0017 AIRPORT FUEL SERVICES, INC. vs. MARTHA’S VINEYARD AIRPORT COMMISSION and DEPOT CORNER, INC. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This action arises out of the defendant, Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission’s (the Commission) decision to award a lease of Lot #33 in the Airport Business Park (the Property) to the defendant, Depot Corner, Inc. (Depot), following a public bidding procedure. The Plaintiff, Airport Fuel Services, Inc. (AFS), has been the lessee of the Property pursuant to a 20 year lease that expired on March 9, 2017 (the Lease). It constructed a gas station, convenience store, and car wash on the Property and operated them over the term of its lease. In its complaint, AFS alleges that “the 2017 RFP issued by [the Commission] was misleading and an inherently unfair proposal” and seeks an order requiring the Commission to lease the Property to it, according to its bid proposal. The case is before the court on AFS’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Commission from leasing the Property to Depot. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the affidavits and documents submitted in support of and opposition to the motion for preliminary relief. Under the terms of the Lease, AFS was permitted to construct the gas station, convenience store, and car wash which it operated over the Lease term. However, Section Eleven of the Lease provided that: “Lessee shall, on the last day of the term, or on earlier termination and forfeiture of the lease, peaceably and quietly surrender and deliver the Premises to Lessor at Lessor’s option free of subtenants, buildings, additions, and improvements constructed or placed thereon by Lessee.”[1] In 2014, the Commission issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a lease for the Premises to commence after the expiry of the AFS Lease, but RFP was withdrawn for reasons that do not affect the court’s ruling on the issues raised by the pending motion. On December 30, 2016, the Commission issued the RFP (which it titled: Request for Qualifications) for a new lease of the Property which is the subject of the present action. In the first section of the RFP, entitled General Information to Proposers, the Commission explained that it “may waive its rights under Section Eleven” (quoted above) to require the present lessee, AFS, to remove the buildings that it constructed on the Property. The RFP went on to state,“[t]he successful Proposer will have the opportunity to either negotiate a separate agreement for the purchase of the existing facilities with the […]
Taylor, et al. v. Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Commission (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-162-16)
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-11963 HUGH C. TAYLOR, trustee,[1] & others[2] vs. MARTHA’S VINEYARD LAND BANK COMMISSION. Suffolk. March 8, 2016. – October 11, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[3] Easement. Real Property, Easement. Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Commission. Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on June 9, 2010. A motion for summary judgment was heard by Alexander H. Sands, III, J., and the remaining issues were also heard by him. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Diane C. Tillotson for the defendant. Gordon M. Orloff for the plaintiffs. Jeffrey T. Angley & Nicholas P. Shapiro, for Roma III, Ltd., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Greg D. Peterson, Mark S. Furman, & Matthew S. Furman, for Sarah A. Kent, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. The defendant, Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Commission, owns and manages a nature preserve on the western edge of Martha’s Vineyard. The preserve is comprised of various parcels of land that the defendant purchased in the 1990s. In 2010, the defendant created a hiking trail through the preserve, which it planned to open to the public. The trail began on a main road, crossed over the grounds of an inn owned by the plaintiffs via a forty-foot wide easement, proceeded from there across three parcels of the defendant’s land for whose benefit the easement was created, and then entered a fourth parcel, also owned by the defendant, that was not intended to benefit from the easement. The plaintiffs filed an action in the Land Court to prevent the defendant from using the easement as part of the hiking trail. They argued, among other things, that it was improper, pursuant to Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton, Inc., 348 Mass. 675 (1965), for the trail to cross over the easement and then continue onto the fourth parcel, given that the easement was not intended to serve that parcel. On this basis, a judge of the Land Court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs. Following a bench trial, at which certain remaining issues were resolved in the defendant’s favor, the defendant appealed from the grant of partial summary judgment, and we allowed its application for direct appellate review.[4] The defendant contends that the bright-line rule […]