Carpenter & Associates LLC

Attorneys at Law - A Civil Litigation Firm

Reported Decisions

First National Bank v. Haufler, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 668 (1985).

This is a leading case concerning trustee attachments, the effectiveness of an order under Mass. R. Civ. P. 69 to establish a lien on money in the hands of a third-party, and the priority of competing liens. {Rob represented FNB Boston}

Goren v. Royal Investments, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 137 (1987).

This is a leading decision in Massachusetts confirming a buyer's right to enforce a "binder" (an accepted offer to purchase) even without the usual purchase and sale agreement, where the parties had agreed upon all of the material terms of the deal and intended to be bound. {Rob represented Goren}

Bird v. Capital Site Management, 423 Mass. 172 (1996).

This case involved an appeal and cross-appeal involving subject matter jurisdiction, exclusion of evidence and a civil contempt. The failure to post a trustee process bond did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. The exclusion of certain evidence was not error. And the finding of contempt (the defendant had withdrawn money in violation of a court order) was justified on the facts presented. An interesting aspect of the case is that the SJC noted an inconsistency between two statutory provisions which read together "made no sense" and suggested that the legislature correct the inconsistency. {Rob represented Bird}

Christian Book Distributors v. Wallace, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 905 (2001).

This appeal concerned the proper exercise of long-arm jurisdiction and the proper exercise of discretion by the trial court when it declined to relive the defendant of a default judgment entered against him. {Rob represented Christian Book}

NG Bros. Construction Inc. v. Cranny, 436 Mass. 638 (2002).

This case concerned the establishment of a mechanics lien under the revised M.G.L. c. 254 and the measure of proof required to sustain a summary judgment. {Rob represented NG Bros.}

Green v. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 770 NE2d 784 (Ind. 2002).

This is a leading case in which the Indiana Supreme Court held that federal jurisdiction over a claim of copyright infringement was not exclusive and that the state court is free to exercise jurisdiction over that claim when asserted as a counterclaim. {Rob represented Hendrickson Publishers}

CBK Brook House I v. Ellen Berlin, et al, Trustees of The Brook House Condominium Trust, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 913 (2005).

This was a suit by the declarant of the Brook House Condominium concerning the proper allocation of the expenses and income from the operation of the "transient" parking garage within the condominium.   While the Trust was unsuccessful in reclaiming the garage as part of the common area, or establishing that the allocation of income verses expenses was unconscionable, it was successful in reallocating certain costs on a retroactive and prospective basis, resulting in a considerable financial benefit to the condominium and the individual unit owners {Rob represented The Brook House Condominium Trust}

City of Boston v. Roxbury Action Program, Inc.,  68 Mass. App. Ct. 468 (2006).

This was a suit by the City of Boston seeking to enforce a deed restriction and force a reconveyance of the protpery.  The Appeals Court upheld a summary judgment entered in the Land Court  dismissing the claims on the basis of the expiration of the applicable statutory limitations periods.  {Rob represented the land owner, RAP-Up Nominee Trust}

Frederick Massaro, et al. v. E. Denis Walsh, et al., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 562 (2008).

This was a suit by a former partner seeking in excess of $3 Million for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a buy-out agreement.  The case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session and the complaint was dismissed in response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, relying on the doctrine of res judicata (claim splitting) and judicial estoppel.  The Appeals Court upheld the dismissal on res judicata grounds and declined to reach the issue of judicial estoppel. {Rob represented the defendants}

^ BACK TO TOP