Levine Law - East Longmeadow, MA

01/22/2025

When is a contract not a contract? It's in the details.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held, in McCarthy v. Young et al , No. 23-P-1124, that an offer to purchase, despite being signed by all parties and including language stating it was “a legal document that creates binding obligations,” was undone because there were materials te...

12/10/2024

Massachusetts makes major changes to liquor license citizenship requirements

Massachusetts liquor license applicants must appoint a “manager of record” as the person responsible for ensuring that an establishment and employees follow rules such as checking IDs. Until recently, that manager of record must be a United States citizen. On November 20, 2024, Governor Healey s...

06/03/2024

Loss of value does not (necessarily) grant standing to challenge a special permit

In Pobeda RT II, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Watertown, et al, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals (Middlesex Cty.) affirmed the lower court’s ruling that a residential property owner did not have standing to challenge the Watertown Zoning Board of Appeal’s granting of a special permit for a 3-story research and development building in an adjacent industrial zone.

For those unfamiliar, standing is a requirement for any plaintiff to bring a lawsuit against a defendant. It is the right to bring the suit and can be 1) demonstrated by a showing that plaintiff was harmed by the action or law in question; or 2) granted by law.*

In finding that the plaintiff did not have standing, the court cited the Massachusetts Zoning Act, which gives standing only a “person aggrieved” by the ZBA’s decision. While an abutter is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of aggrievement, the court found that the plaintiff’s argument that the new development would diminish the residential property’s value failed as a matter of law.

This finding follows the doctrine that loss of value by itself does not give value unless "it is 'derivative of or related to cognizable interests protected by the applicable zoning scheme.'" The court then examined the Watertown zoning ordinance and did not find any reference to a goal of protecting individual property value. Rather, the zoning ordinance was enacted to protect the values of the community as a whole, “the very basis upon which the constitutionality of zoning legislation hinges.”

If you are also a zoning dork, you can read the whole decision here:https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2024/05/31/c22P1154.pdf

*Standing can also be shown in hypothetical situations, a la the chilling effect of the First Amendment. But that is well beyond the scope of this blog.

In Pobeda RT II, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Watertown, et al , the Massachusetts Court of Appeals (Middlesex Cty.) affirmed the lower court’s ruling that a residential property owner did not have standing to challenge the Watertown Zoning Board of Appeal’s granting of a special permit for...

04/08/2024

Levine Law is closing early at 2:00 pm 4/8/24

The eclipse may have 93% coverage but we are 100% taking the afternoon off to watch with our families.

The eclipse may have 93% coverage but we are 100% taking the afternoon off to watch with our famlies.

01/20/2024

A more fitting tribute I cannot imagine. Thank you to everyone at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds for this heartfelt tribute to my father.

Larry May you Rest in Peace 🙏🏼❤️🙏🏼 You will always be part of the Registry Family and be missed but never forgotten!!! We wore Pink to honor you Today !! And as you always said “Misbehave “ ……. Fly High !! Our Friend !!!

01/11/2024

Levine Law is closed January 12 and January 16, 2024

Feel free to send messages through the contact page and we will contact you upon our return.

09/08/2023

The importance of thorough title searches

This week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision on a topic near and dear to our hearts - title searches. For those who haven’t read all of our blog posts (as hard as that is to imagine), in Massachusetts, an attorney representing a lender must review at least 50 years of public records in order to issue a certificate of title for a property. This title search is done to find any encumbrances on the property, which could mean many things, but generally attorneys are looking for monetary liens or the rights of other to use the premises.

In Cormier v. Murray, the defendant attorney represented a bank that was giving a loan to the plaintiff homebuyers. During the course of the attorney’s representation, he conducted a title search. However, the title search was only done on the property address and did not include searching by the names of the previous owners of the property. Because of this, the attorney missed an encumbrance for $23,931.42, which should have been paid at the time of closing. Because it was missed, the outstanding payment then became the responsibility of the buyer.

The SJC opinion goes into some legal questions to be resolved on remand, but one of the main takeaways is that a title search done only on a property, as opposed to an owner, does not meet statutory requirements and may be negligent. At Levine Law, we are proud of our reputation as thorough examiners who bug our title companies with nitpicky questions, all the better to protect our clients.

Full opinion here:https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2023/09/07/i22P0102.pdf

This week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision on a topic near and dear to our hearts - title searches. For those who haven’t read all of our blog posts (as hard as that is to imagine), in Massachusetts, an attorney representing a lender must review at least 50 years of publ...

06/30/2023

Massachusetts jury rules in favor of homeowners on Japanese knotw**d infestation

Japanese knotw**d is an invasive plant that takes years - and expertise - to eradicate from a lawn. Its incredibly deep root system can create cracks in a foundation and can be ruinous to other plants in the area. As seen in Trites v. Cricones, et al., Middlesex County Superior Court No. 1881cv2939, prospective homeowners and developers should be vigilant when it comes to this pest.

According to decision, the plaintiffs purchased a newly-built home from the developer in 2017. Unbeknownst to the buyers, the developer had been made aware of a knotw**d infestation in a pile of soil on the development but (perhaps not being aware of the dangerous nature of the w**d) chose to mix it with clean loam and spread it around the property. The homeowners inspected the property before moving in but the knotw**d problem didn’t become apparent until after they moved in.

After being made aware of the issue, the developer tried, unsuccessfully, to remove the knotw**d, and suggested the Tristes to spray the yard with Roundup. The situation escalated after that, with both sides making their anger known. A lawsuit ensued.

After trial, the jury found that the developer breached the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, was negligent, and created a nuisance. The jury awarded the Tristes $186,000.00, the cost of repairing the lawn.

Following the jury’s decision, the judge did not find for the Tristes on a Rule 93A (consumer protection) claim because the contractor did not knowingly harm the plaintiffs.

When buying a home, it may be a good idea to ask your inspector if they know what Japanese knotw**d looks like and to keep an eye out. It may save your lawn and your foundation.

The full decision can be found here:https://masslawyersweekly.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2023/06/12-023-23.pdf Hat tip to Cameron Burke for pointing me towards this case!

Japanese knotw**d is an invasive plant that takes years - and expertise - to eradicate from a lawn. Its incredibly deep root system can create cracks in a foundation and can be ruinous to other plants in the area. As seen in Trites v. Cricones, et al., Middlesex County Superior Court No. 1881cv2939,

05/30/2023

🏡 A big thank you to Attorney Josh Levine from Levine Law for our lunch and learn on Trusts! 👏🍽️

02/13/2023

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on undue influence and the perils of challenging probate.

Today, Massachusetts’ top court released an interesting decision in In the matter of the estate of John P. Urban.

To greatly simplify the fact pattern: Mr. Urban was a wealthy, and apparently quite social, man who lived in Massachusetts, spent some time in Florida, and did not have any heirs or descendants. When in Florida, he stayed at a guesthouse on the property of Michelle Finnegan’s parents, where she also lived.

Starting in 2013, Mr. Urban executed four wills prepared by Attorney Singleton. In each of the wills, he spread his estate among 16 or 17 friends and institutions, with the remaining funds to be used for a scholarship in his name. Michelle Finnegan was a beneficiary to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in each will. At some point, Mr. Urban was diagnosed with dementia, but the court heard testimony from the attorney and witnesses to the will that Mr. Urban appeared cognizant when he met with them and signed “of his own free will, without undue influence or constraint.”

In 2016, Ms. Finnegan flew from Florida to Massachusetts and presented Mr. Urban with an agreement, drafted by another lawyer, naming Ms. Finnegan as the personal representative and sole beneficiary of the estate.

In 2019, Mr. Urban passed away at the age of ninety-seven. Attorney Singleton filed a probate proceeding to admit the 2016 will to probate. Soon after, Ms. Finnegan filed a challenge and a claim against the estate for $5 million for care of Mr. Urban when he was in Florida. Eleven beneficiaries of the will, including the scholarship fund, objected to Ms. Finnegan’s challenge.

Ms. Finnegan’s challenge stated that the 2016 will was a product of ‘undue influence,’ that is “'that an (1) unnatural disposition has been made (2) by a person susceptible to undue influence to the advantage of someone (3) with an opportunity to exercise undue influence and (4) who in fact has used that opportunity to procure the contested disposition through improper means.'" In other words, beneficiaries of the will forced Mr. Urban, who was susceptible to influence due to his illness, to leave them property.

Normally, the challenger to the will has the burden of proving the undue influence. However, when the proponent is a financial beneficiary the burden shifts to the proponent of the will to prove the absence of undue influence. The court found that, because Mr. Urban executed his will with the assistance of independent legal counsel, the burden had been met, and the lower court’s decision in favor of the beneficiaries was proper.

As for the 2016 agreement, the court found it to be a product of undue influence. Mr. Urban was proud of his scholarship plan and intended to leave his many close friends with bequests, hence it would have been unnatural indeed to scrap his plans and to name Ms. Finnegan as the sole beneficiary.

As a capper, the court observed in a footnote that Mr. Urban’s will contained an in terrorem clause, meaning that if any beneficiary challenged the will, their claim was forfeited. So in the end, Ms. Finnegan’s gambit will prove costly.

Full text of the decision can be read here. If you need your own independent legal counsel, contact the team at Levine Law.

Today, Massachusetts’ top court released an interesting decision in In the matter of the estate of John P. Urban . To greatly simplify the fact pattern: Mr. Urban was a wealthy, and apparently quite social, man who lived in Massachusetts, spent some time in Florida, and did not have any heirs or

02/09/2023

How do you file a lawsuit when there’s no one to sue?

Imagine this scenario - someone buys a parcel of land, and when they go to sell it or divide it, it’s discovered that a portion of the land was not included in the purchase deed. Almost always, even the seller thought they were including the forgotten land.

Sometimes, enough time has passed since the purchase that the sellers have passed away. If the court has not determined the seller’s heirs, there is literally no one to sign a deed correcting the mistake. So what does our beleaguered property owner do? You can probably guess from the title that they have to bring a lawsuit (the grounds of which will be covered in another post).

The problem is, normally, a lawsuit must name a specific person or entity as defendant. Then the lawsuit must be personally served. That is, a notice of the suit is actually handed by the county sheriff to the person being sued.

So in the example above, what can be done? First, the property owner names as defendant the original seller’s heirs or anyone else who may have an interest in the property. Next, the property owner asks the court for permission to publish a legal notice in a local paper rather than personally serve the lawsuit, as that would be impossible. If the legal notice is published and no one responds, the lawsuit can continue to eventual, unopposed, victory.

Finding yourself in such a difficult situation requires creative legal solutions. The team at Levine Law would be happy to help.

Imagine this scenario - someone buys a parcel of land, and when they go to sell it or divide it, it’s discovered that a portion of the land was not included in the purchase deed. Almost always, even the seller thought they were including the forgotten land. Sometimes, enough time has passed since ...

11/23/2022

Levine Law is closed November 24th and 25th for Thanksgiving. As always, we are grateful for our wonderful clients!