seal

Court Case Record MASSACHUSETTS HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION DBA & another vs. MASSDEVELOPMENTAL SALTONSTALL BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2014-J-0109


MASSACHUSETTS HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION DBA & another vs. MASSDEVELOPMENTAL SALTONSTALL BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2014-J-0109


 
Case Number2014-J-0109
Case TitleMASSACHUSETTS HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CORPORATION DBA & another vs. MASSDEVELOPMENTAL SALTONSTALL BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountySuffolk
CourtSuffolk Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date03/19/2014
Close Date04/07/2014

Parties

CounselNameType
Robert M. Schlein, EsquireMassachusetts Higher Education APlaintiff/Respondent
Robert M. Schlein, EsquirePrince Lobel Tye LLPPlaintiff/Respondent
Sander A. Rikleen, EsquireMassDevelopmental Saltonstall BuDefendant/Petitioner
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
03/19/2014 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, § 118 with attachments, filed by MassDevelopmental Saltonstall Building Redevelopment Corporation.
03/21/2014 #2 ORDER: Any response to the petition shall be filed on or before 3/28/14. To the extent the respondents do not oppose the relief requested in the petition, they should respond accordingly. (Wolohojian, J.). *Notice.
04/02/2014 #3 Notice of order entered 3/21/14 sent to Robert M. Schlein, Esq. returned as "attempted-not known, unable to forward." Notice re-sent to address listed with MassBBO.
04/04/2014 Letter from Attorney Adam R. Doherty re: the respondents do not oppose the relief requested in the appellant's petition.^
04/07/2014 RE#1: The parties sought to have this Superior Court action transferred to the Land Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 212, § 26. That section provides that the "superior court may, upon the application of either party, order a jury-waived civil action where any right, title or interest in land is involved." The action falls within the ambit of the statute, and the parties all agreed to the transfer. The Superior Court judge allowed the motion on February 19, 2014. Subsequently (apparently sua sponte), the judge reconsidered and denied the motion, relying on Trial Court Rule XII. That rule, on its face, does not appear to apply. The parties did not seek an interdepartmental judicial transfer, nor do there appear to be multiple related suits pending in separate trial departments. Although the judge's endorsement order also refers to consultation with the administrative office of the Superior Court as a basis for denying the motion, no detail is given. In the circumstances, I vacate the order dated February 28, 2014 and remand for reconsideration. (Wolohojian, J.) *Notice/Attest.