Part 2 of a two part series. For part 1 on filing the Complaint, Venue and Discovery click here.

Expert Testimony

We left off in our last post at the discovery state of litigation. We covered fact discovery of witnesses, but we didn’t address an important component of most real estate litigation cases: experts.

Expert testimony is required when you need to explain to a judge or jury a technical area of the case which is outside the general knowledge of a “regular” person. Experts in a Massachusetts real estate lawsuit can range from appraisers, construction experts, land surveyors, title attorneys, land use planners, civil and wetlands engineers, traffic planners, and handwriting experts. Needless to say, experts are expensive, charging several hundred dollars per hour on an engagement. But they are vitally important. In Massachusetts state court litigation, parties must disclose before trial an expert’s qualifications and a general summary of what the expert will testify to at trial, including his methodology. For litigators like myself, preparing and cross-examining experts is often quite an intellectual challenge and one of the “fun” parts of a trial.

Dispositive Motions

Often in real estate litigation, the case can be decided by way of a “dispositive motion” by the judge prior to trial. In this procedure, called a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, the important facts of the case are undisputed, and the judge can decide the case based on the law. The lawyers will prepare detailed motions, affidavits, and legal briefs, and there will usually be a lengthy hearing before the judge. This procedure will also avoid the need for a trial, saving litigants a much expense. Judges, however, can take a long time deciding a dispositive motion. Months to even a full year is not unheard of.

Pretrial Conference

If the facts of the case are hotly disputed, the case will be set down for a trial date at the pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference, the attorneys meet with the judge to discuss readiness for trial, witness lists, expert testimony, unusual legal or evidentiary issues, and the status of settlement talks, if any.

Obtaining a firm trial day these days is pretty much a moving target. It really depends on the county. Middlesex Superior is pretty good at giving firm trial dates, while Norfolk County is not, in my experience.  The Land Court gives out firm trial dates, but has no juries. Prepare to wait several months after the pre-trial conference to get a trial date, which will probably be rescheduled at least once. Massachusetts courts have been beset with budget cuts which has negatively impacted the speed of the courts’ docket. Justice moves slowly in the Commonwealth.

Settlement/Mediation

Given the huge costs and delays of litigation, this is a good place to talk about settlement and mediation. I always explore settlement possibilities of a case early on. If a case can be settled early, both litigants can avoid significant legal expenses and can usually craft a better resolution than a judge or jury can. But clients often come to me very upset and emotional about the situation, so talking settlement may be perceived as “caving in” to the other side. It is not, and clients usually see the light once they get a bill or two from my office.

Mediation is a non-binding settlement process where a neutral mediator (usually a retired judge or experienced attorney) will mediate the dispute between the parties in a structured manner. Both sides get to tell their sides of the story, then the mediator will usually separate the parties into different rooms, shuttling back and forth attempting to broker the peace. There is a cathartic and healing process that often occurs during mediation where parties have a chance to express their anger, resentment, and feelings which can greatly assist the settlement process. Also, the settlement itself often can be much more flexible and creative than what a judge or jury can render after a trial. If mediation does not work out, the case goes back on the trial list. There is no obligation to settle.

Trial

Less than 1% of all civil cases in Massachusetts get to the end of a trial. If your case is in this 1%, prepare yourself for an experience. Jury trials are not for the faint of heart. They are incredibly labor intensive, with the attorneys spending hours upon hours preparing for trial, and burning the midnight oil during the trial itself. The more lawyer time required, the higher the legal bill.

If you are selecting a Massachusetts litigation or trial attorney, ask him or her how many civil jury trials they have done. I’m not talking about former district attorneys who have done a bunch of criminal trials. Complex, civil trials are a totally different animal and call for a lawyer who has done a significant amount of civil trial work. Be wary of any lawyer who claims to have won every trial he has done. There is a saying that a trial lawyer who has never lost a case hasn’t tried many in the first place. Don’t be afraid of small law firm attorneys. In my experience, they are much better trying cases than big firm lawyers who spent the greater part of their careers doing document review and depositions.

Appeals

In the American judicial system, litigants can pretty much appeal anything with impunity. Filing an appeal will usually stop a final judgment from issuing, but in some cases the winning party can ask the losing party to post a bond.

Appeals requires a special skill set, great research, and writing by an experienced Massachusetts appellate attorney. The appeals process can take at least a year or even more to complete. The trial record must be assembled by the trial court. If there was a trial, transcripts need to be ordered from the court reporters or digital tapes and then transcribed. This can take quite a bit of time. Then, the attorneys file lengthy appellate briefs, after which the case is scheduled for oral argument before a panel of appellate justices. After oral argument is held, the court will issue its written opinion, which will either uphold the lower court’s decision, reverse it, or remand it back for a new trial or other action. Appellate opinions are released to the general public and become what is known as the common law of Massachusetts, to be cited as precedent in other cases.

Well, that’s it for now. Remember, litigation should be a last resort, once all attempts at an amicable, reasonable resolution fail.

____________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Litigation Attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases in the Massachusetts Land and Superior Courts. For further information you can contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

Major Impact To College Rental Market: Landlords Cannot Rent To 4 or More Unrelated Adults In One Unit Without Lodging License

In a decision which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students near local colleges and universities and perhaps beyond Boston and Amherst, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that renting to 4 or more unrelated students in one apartment unit is an illegal “lodging house” unless a special license is obtained.

In City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties LLC (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 8, 2011), several landlords renting to Holy Cross students challenged the legality of the Massachusetts lodging housing law. The law requires a lodging housing license for any unit rented to four or more unrelated adults. City of Worcester officials cited the College Hill landlords for renting to 4 students in each apartment unit, without a proper license and without sprinkler systems. The students all signed a 12 month lease. The Housing Court sided with the city, and when the landlords balked, found them in contempt.

Lodging Housing Law

Although enacted nearly a hundred years ago in 1918, the court found that the lodging house law has relevance today with respect to the common practice of overcrowding persons in an unsuitable space and fire prevention. To obtain a lodging house license, an applicant must have sprinkler systems in the premises, which most landlords find too expensive to install.

The landlords argued that a group of four college students was a “family unit” not lodgers. While the landlords get credit for creative lawyering, the court didn’t buy the argument, holding that “we have no doubt that four or more unrelated adults, sharing housing while attending college, is not an arrangement that lends itself to the formation of a stable and durable household.”

Impact Outside College Towns?

Prior to this decision, housing authorities typically allowed 4 or more unrelated adults to occupy single apartments as roommates without a lodging license provided that minimum space requirements were met: 150 s.f. of living space for the first person, 100 s.f. for each additional person (3 occupants = 350 s.f. of living space); 70 s.f. of bedroom space for 1st person, plus 50 s.f. for additional person (120 s.f. for 2 persons in one bedroom).

After the College Hill decision, however, this generally accepted interpretation is now in question. The court did not mention adult roommates, nor did it make any distinction between undergraduates or adults. In my opinion, using the College Hill ruling, housing authorities, who want to crack down on unruly, crowded apartment dwellers, may seek to require lodging licenses for apartments occupied by 4 or more unrelated persons.

Boston: Rule Is 5+ Undergrads

In the City of Boston, a new zoning ordinance went into effect in 2008 prohibiting 5 or more undergraduate students from living in one apartment unit. We will see how the Boston Inspectional Services Dept. interprets the College Hill ruling.

________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate and landlord-tenant attorney. Please contact him if you need legal assistance with rental property legal issues.

Massachusetts Summary Process Evictions: An Unlevel Playing Field For Landlords

In Massachusetts, evictions are called “summary process.” According to the rules governing eviction cases, summary process is supposed to be “just, speedy, and inexpensive.” In practice, however, summary process can be anything but that. In fact, as I always inform my landlord clients, Massachusetts is one of the most tenant friendly states in the country, and an eviction can be costly, frustrating and unfair to landlords. In some cases, it can take many months to evict a tenant.

Further, Massachusetts eviction practice is loaded with traps for the unwary and procedural complexities for landlords. Landlords who represent themselves do so at their own peril and will often arrive at court with their cases dismissed for not following these requirements. It’s not a do-it-yourself situation.

Grounds For Eviction

A.      Non-payment

There are several common grounds for evicting a tenant. The most common is for non-payment of rent. In these cases, the landlord must send the tenant a statutory 14 day “notice to quit” before starting the eviction process. The notice to quit must be drafted carefully, and the best practice is to have it served by a constable or sheriff to ensure proof of delivery. The landlord must prove in court that the tenant received the notice, and service by constable or sheriff will automatically qualify as “good service.” Certified mail is not good enough as tenants can avoid pickup.

B.      No-Fault

Another common ground for eviction is for termination of a 30 day tenancy at will, otherwise known as a no-fault eviction. Again, a 30 day notice to quit must be served on the tenant before commencing an eviction. Landlords often trip up on this type of notice with short months. In practice, judges will often give tenants in no-fault evictions a bit more leeway in terms of vacating the premises.

C.      For cause

“For cause” evictions encompass the range of bad behavior by tenants in violation of lease provisions. It could be illegal activity, drug use, excessive noise, uncleanliness, harassment of other residents, non-approved “roommates” and the like. Like all other evictions, the landlord must issue a notice to quit to the tenant stating the specifics of the offenses. “For cause” evictions are the most involved of all evictions as the landlord must offer proof by way of live testimony of the tenant’s violations of the lease. Getting police officers to show up for an eviction hearing can be challenging. For drugs and other illegal activity, Massachusetts also has a special expedited eviction process.

Going to Court

Starting an eviction requires the preparation and service of a Summary Process Summons and Complaint. You can choose to file your case in the local District Court or the Housing Court which is specialized to hear evictions. The Housing Court fees are less expensive, but can be busier. Some Housing Court judges have the reputation of being tenant or landlord friendly as well. Some would probably be happier retired and playing golf. It’s a tough job these days.

The summary process summons and complaint form is complicated to the layperson. It must be first served by a constable or sheriff on the tenant. Then, no less than 7 days after, it must be filed with the court by the “entry date,” which is always a Monday. The hearings are almost always on Thursday morning. Again, it’s best to have an experienced Massachusetts eviction attorney handle the legal paperwork.

This can be the start of frustration for the landlord, as the tenant has a right to file “discovery” – formal requests for information and documents – from the landlord, which will automatically delay the hearing for two weeks. The tenant also may assert defenses and counterclaims against the landlord. These can range from improper notice or service, unsanitary conditions, no heat/hot water, failure to make repairs, retaliation, discrimination, and violations of the security deposit law—which carries triple damages and attorneys’ fees. (See my prior post on security deposits). Regardless of the merits of such claims, these defenses and counterclaims make the eviction process more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive.

Agreements for Judgment and Mediation

Eviction sessions are very busy. In some courts, there are over 100 cases stacked up on any one day and only one judge to hear them all. Accordingly, the courts will encourage parties to work out their differences on their own through mediation which is an informal sit-down between the parties to discuss ways to resolve the case. Some courts have housing specialists who can preside over the mediation session. Mediation is always non-binding so if no agreement can be reached you can proceed to a trial.

In the Housing Court, there are trained housing specialists who facilitate the mediation process. There are many advantages for landlords to mediation and I almost always recommend giving it a try. The end result of a mediation is for the parties to sign an agreement for judgment. In a non-payment case, you can structure a payment plan and/or voluntary move-out. For a “cause” eviction, you can provide for a “last chance” agreement or move-out. The major benefit for landlords is that an agreement for judgment becomes a binding court order and the judge is supposed to enforce it upon proof of a violation. It also shows the judge that the landlord has been reasonable and accommodating. Experienced Massachusetts eviction attorneys will also make the tenants waive their rights to appeal and right to delay the case any further so as to avoid last minute requests for more time to vacate.

I could write several more chapters about Massachusetts evictions, but I’ll save my material for later posts. Check back in a few weeks for more information.

__________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts summary process & eviction attorney who has handled over 500 eviction cases.

FNMA v. Nunez: Tenant Foreclosure Act Applied Retroactively

On September 6, 2011, in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez (embedded below), the Supreme Judicial Court considered for the first time the 13-month-old “Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties” Act which protects tenants living in foreclosed properties from eviction in certain circumstances. The issue was whether the Act applied retroactively, and the court answered “yes,” applying it “to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act’s effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date.”

Summary Of Act

The Act, passed in August 2010 and now codified in a new Mass. General Laws Chapter 186A, bans institutional lenders (not private parties) who own foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without “just cause.” What this means in plain English is that foreclosing lenders such as Fannie Mae cannot evict tenants of foreclosed properties unless they stop paying rent or commit serious lease violations such as illegal activity on the premises.

Loophole: Private Purchasers

There is a huge loophole in the Act however. It does not apply to private individuals who purchase properties at foreclosure. They are free to evict tenants for any reason. But, they must provide tenants with at least 90 day notice to move, and the tenant retains the right to ask for more time to leave in any eviction legal proceeding.

Impact: Slow Down In Sales of Foreclosed Properties

The impact of this ruling will be to expand the number of tenants who will be protected from eviction when their apartments fall into foreclosure. It will also slow down the pace of selling off REO and foreclosed properties to individual owners and investors who will now inherit tenants with expanded occupancy rights in foreclosed properties.

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled over 500 eviction cases in the District and Housing Courts. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts landlord-tenant dispute.

FNMA v. Nunez

Battle Over Invalid Foreclosures May Shift To Evictions In Housing Courts

In the closely watched case of Bank of New York v. Bailey (embedded below), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on August 4, 2011 that the Housing Court may hear a homeowner’s challenge that a foreclosing lender failed to conduct a foreclosure sale in accordance with state law and under the now seminal U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision. Previous to this decision, foreclosing lenders and their attorneys were quite successful in evicting homeowners even where there were defects in the foreclosures.

A Subprime Eviction

KC Bailey obtained a mortgage in 2005, which appears to have been of the sub-prime vintage (America’s Wholesale Lender), on his home in Mattapan. Merely two years later, he defaulted, and the lender commenced foreclosure proceedings. Bailey claimed that the lender never provided him with any notice of the foreclosure, and he first learned about it when an eviction notice was duct taped to his fence. The lender started an eviction in the Boston Housing Court. Bailey defended on the basis of the alleged defective notice. The Housing Court judge ruled in favor of the lender, and the case went up to the SJC.

Ruling: Housing Court May Hear Foreclosure Challenge

The SJC first ruled, in a case of first impression, that the Housing Court had jurisdiction to consider whether the lender had properly completed the foreclosure sale and provided adequate notice to Bailey. The court noted that such a challenged was “long-standing.” Next, the Court ruled that all foreclosing lenders seeking eviction must show that it has completed the foreclosure sale in full compliance with state law. This is a change in prior practice as lenders would typically submit the foreclosure deed as evidence of good title and ownership without additional investigation.

Impact: More Difficult To Evict, But More Opportunity For Loan Mods

This decision is going to make it more difficult and expensive to evict foreclosed homeowners and get these properties off lenders’ books. On the positive side, it may give homeowners more leverage to negotiate loan modifications to enable them to stay in their homes and recover from financial distress. Evictions based on faulty foreclosures will be nearly impossible to complete and could potentially drag on for months if not years.

This decision will also have a substantial impact on the already over-burdened Housing Court system. If you have ever been to the Thursday summary process session at Boston or Worcester Housing Court, it’s akin to a refugee camp, with hundreds of cases lined up and families facing homelessness. It’s very sad. I’m sure the judges will push lenders and homeowners dealing with faulty foreclosures to resolve their differences out of court, or tell them to wait in back of the line for trial assignment.

Bank of New York v. Bailey

Property Owners Need To Clear Snow & Ice After Storms

As I was slipping and sliding in the first real snow yesterday, this blog got a spike in traffic about Massachusetts snow removal law. Back when we were sunning in 80 degree weather, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of snow removal law and announced a new rule of law that all Massachusetts property owners are legally responsible for the removal of snow and ice from their property. The old rule was that owners could leave natural accumulations of snow and ice intact and escape liability for slip and falls. No longer.

The case is Papadopoulos v. Target Corp. and can be read here. You can read my prior post on the case here.

Impact To Massachusetts Property Owners: Shovel Early & Often

What this change in Massachusetts snow removal law means for all property owners, both residential and commercial, is that they need to be extra vigilant after snow and ice storms, and clear areas in which the public and visitors have access–early and often. Whether a property owner takes reasonable steps in removing snow and ice will be determined by judges, juries and later cases on an individual basis. If you cannot clear the snow and ice, hire a private company to do it.

Important: speak with your insurance agent about increasing the limits of your liability coverage. I recommend Nadine Heaps at Purple Ink Insurance out of Ashland, MA.

Read More: Shoveling Ruling May Face First Test–Boston Globe (12.25.10).

A Man’s Condo Unit May Not Be His Castle For Smoking…

As anti-smoking restrictions become increasingly widespread, smokers find the last place they can indulge freely is within the confines of their home. However, the saying that a man’s home is his castle may not extend to condominiums where condo associations are enacting bans against smoking in common areas and even individual units.

In Chicago, the 1418 N. Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association recently banned smoking in interior common areas and inside the units. Smoking is permitted in a unit, however, if it is restricted to a single room that has been equipped with an association-approved, self-contained air-treatment system. Last year, a Cape Cod condominium considered a smoking ban in living areas.

Smokers will surely cry foul over this, but condominiums are a special kind of property. As Massachusetts courts have ruled, “central to the concept of condominium ownership is the principle that each owner, in exchange for the benefits of association with other owners, must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property.” Condominium trustees are empowered to enact rules that are “reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness and peace of mind of the unit owners.”

With smoking, however, the issue become quite cloudy. Without legal precedent that smoking constitutes a private nuisance – which would give associations a green light to enact indoor smoking bans – an anti-smoking rule which is not made into a formal condominium document amendment may not be enforceable. Recorded amendments typically require 75% unit owner approval, and also give prospective buyers fair warning before they decide to buy a unit. For those associations that can muster a 75% vote, they may on their way to smoke free living bliss…