Court Case Record FOX MEADOW CONDOMINIUM TRUST vs. MARA FELD & another 2012-P-1889


Court Case Number: 2012-P-1889

Case Number2012-P-1889
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtWorcester Superior Court
Court Address
Field Date02/06/2012
Close Date04/07/2014


Gary M. Daddario, Esquire Scott John Eriksen, EsquireFox Meadow Condominium TrustPlaintiff/Appellee
Mark Ellis O'Brien, EsquireMara FeldDefendant/Appellant
Mark Ellis O'Brien, EsquireMark Ellis O'BrienDefendant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
12/03/2012 #1 Entered.
12/03/2012 #2 Notice of entry sent.
12/03/2012 #3 Motion to extend deadline for filing fee, filed by Mara Feld.
12/03/2012 #4 RE#2: Allowed. *Notice.
01/24/2013 #5 MOTION to extend brief & appendix due date, filed by Mara Feld.
01/25/2013 #6 RE#3: Extension to 02/13/2013 granted for filing of brief of Mara Feld, Defendant/Appellant. Notice to counsel.
02/19/2013 #7 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Fox Meadow Condominium Trust.
02/21/2013 #8 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant Mara Feld.
02/25/2013 #9 RE#4: No action necessary as Appellant's brief was accepted for filing. *Notice.
03/15/2013 SERVICE of brief for Plaintiff/Appellee Fox Meadow Condominium Trust.
07/17/2013 Letter from Scott John Eriksen re: judgment and order issued in Worcester Superior court.
07/18/2013 RE#7: To the extent appellee argues the within appeal is moot, it is given leave to file a supplement to its brief, not to exceed 10 pages addressing the mootness issue. Such supplement is due on or before 8/7/13. Appellant is granted leave to file a response to appellee's supplemental memorandum, not to exceed 10 pages, within 21 days of the filing of appellee's supplemental memorandum. In the alternative, the parties may file a stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to MRAP 29(b), on or before 8/7/13. *Notice.
08/07/2013 SERVICE of supplement to brief for Plaintiff/Appellee Fox Meadow Condominium Trust.
10/23/2013 Under consideration by Panel. (Graham, J., Sikora, J., Hanlon, J.).
04/07/2014 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The defendants appeal from an order of the Superior Court entered on September 25, 2012, granting a permanent injunction to the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to perform certain tasks, and awarding to the plaintiff, Fox Meadow Condominium Trust (Fox Meadow), its fees and costs. By letter dated July 15, 2013, after the instant action was briefed, Fox Meadow notified this court that the Superior Court had issued a final order and judgment [2] in the underlying action, rendering this action moot. Fox Meadow was granted leave to file a supplement to its brief "addressing the mootness issue," on or before August 7, 2013; the docket indicates that Fox Meadow's supplemental brief was filed on that day. The defendants were given twenty-one days after the filing to respond. It appears from the docket that the defendants did not file a response to Fox Meadow's supplement. Therefore, because the Superior Court, during the pendency of this appeal, entered a final disposition of the underlying action, the existing injunction, and any appeal therefrom, became moot. "A preliminary injunction lapses when a final decree is entered. Carlson v. Lawrence H. Oppenheim Co., 334 Mass. 462, 465 (1956) (preliminary injunction does not survive entry of final decree)." Judge Rotenberg Educ. Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Retardation (No. 2), 424 Mass. 471, 472 (1997). Appeal dismissed as moot. (Graham, Sikora & Hanlon, JJ.) *Notice/Attest. Footnote: [1] Mark Ellis O'Brien. [2] The order and judgment include, in addition to other mandates, all conditions of the permanent injunction previously entered on September 25, 2012.