In response to the coronavirus threat, Johnson & Borenstein has been taking active measures to ensure the safety and well-being of our employees, clients, and guests, while at the same time ensuring that we continue to provide the same high quality legal services...
Firm News
New Requirements For Foreclosing Mortgagees Courtesy of the Supreme Judicial Court
Mortgagees beware – the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a foreclosing entity must strictly comply with the provisions of the mortgage which delineate the notice of default to homeowners. This case extends the rule, set out in United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n v....
Land Court Exercises Discretion to Protect Homeowners in Tax Title Foreclosure
Did you know that, for failure to pay as little as a few hundred dollars in municipal real property taxes, you could lose your home and all the equity in it? Most people don’t, which makes a new case out of the Land Court that much more important. The statutory...
The Land and Superior Courts’ Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Permit Session Cases
Today the Appeals Court in Skawski et al. v. Greenfield Investors Property Development, LLC, Docket No. 13-P-1947, confirmed that the Land Court and the Superior Court have exclusive original jurisdiction over Zoning Act (G.L. c. 40A, § 17) appeals that arise from...
SCOTUS: Truth in Lending Act Only Requires Written Notice of Intent to Rescind Within 3-Year Period
In a unanimous, short, decision by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Jesinoski et ux. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. that a borrower exercising his right to rescind a mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a),...
Commonwealth Ownership Doesn’t Interrupt Adverse Possession Clock
Does the Commonwealth’s ownership of land prevent the requisite 20-year period for an adverse possession claim from commencing? Today, in 1148 Davol Street LLC v. Mechanic’s Mill One LLC, the Appeals Court held that G.L. c. 260, § 31 does not prevent the clock from...
Appeals Court Further Clarifies Requirements for Foreclosure Notices
Recently, the Appeals Court issued its decision in Haskins v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company. The case raised the question of whether a notice of a mortgagor’s right to cure sent pursuant to G.L. C. 244, s. 35A is deficient if it is sent by the mortgage servicer, rather...
MA Appeals Court Decides “Lot Depth” Means Just What It Says
The Appeals Court ruled in Pellulo v. Croft that the term “lot depth,” despite being undefined in the Natick Zoning Bylaw, should be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the term and the Building Inspector’s decision to measure the defendant’s lot...