Court Case Record NANCY STRECKER & another vs. MARY TAVARES & others 2010-J-0454 UID(7002)

NANCY STRECKER & another vs. MARY TAVARES & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2010-J-0454

Case Number2010-J-0454
Case TitleNANCY STRECKER & another vs. MARY TAVARES & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CourtLand Court
Court Address
Field Date10/04/2010
Close Date10/26/2011


Tyler E. Chapman, EsquireNancy StreckerPlaintiff/Respondent
Tyler E. Chapman, Esquire Cara J. Daniels, EsquireWilliam D. StreckerPlaintiff/Respondent
Daniel C. Perry, EsquireMary TavaresDefendant/Petitioner
Daniel C. Perry, EsquireFrancis SutulaDefendant/Petitioner
Jennifer S.D. Roberts, EsquireSheriff's Meadow FoundationDefendant
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
10/04/2010 #1 Appeal entered purs to G.L.c. 231, s.6(G) w/attach.
10/04/2010 #2 Memo: Superior Court judge was assigned to this case in the Land Court per interdepartmental order.
10/06/2010 #3 Letter from Amy S. Mello, Esquire re: to confirm that petition pursuant to MGLC 231, S 6G shall be automatically docketed on the single justice docket.
10/19/2010 #4 ORDER: "....For the reasons set forth below, I reverse the judge's award of attorneys fees. A 6F award is to be made only if the claims or defenses at issue are both frivolous and not made in good faith..."A claim is frivolous if there is an 'absence of legal or factual basis for the claim,' Demoulas Super Mkts., Inc. v. Ryan, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 259, 267 (2007), and if the claim is 'without even a colorable basis in the law.'" Fronk v. Fowler, 456 Mass. 317, 329 (2010), quoting from Lewis v. Emerson, 391 Mass. 517, 526 (1984)... I conclude that the Sutulas put forward a reasonably strong argument that the judge mistakenly ascribed an environmental protection purpose to the creation of the driveway easement. I also conclude that the Sutulas credibly argued that even if the driveway easement had a dual purpose, the evidence did not support the judge's conclusion that relocating the easement would somehow "contravene" that purpose. I therefore disagree with the judge's conclusion that the Sutulas' claim was "absurd" and "frivolous," at least based on the reasoning upon which he relied....I therefore conclude that the award of attorneys fees cannot stand. Award of attorney's fees pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6F reversed." (Milkey, J.). Notice/attest/McCann, J./image
10/29/2010 #5 Notice of appeal filed by Nancy Strecker and William D. Strecker.
11/03/2010 #6 Copy of Paper #4 to counsel.
11/03/2010 #7 Notice of Assembly of the Record to counsel.
11/03/2010 Entry statement, docket entries to panel.
11/03/2010 Memo: Case folder of 10-J-454 filed with the assemble record.
11/08/2010 Memo: Case entered on the panel as 10-P-1973. Case folder of 10-J-454 filed with 10-P-1973.
10/26/2011 ORDER: (Cypher, Kafker & Meade, JJ.) The order of the Appeals Court single justice is vacated and so much of the judgment as awards attorney's fees and costs under G. L. c. 231, § 6F, is vacated. That matter is remanded to the Land Court for further proceedings consistent with the rule 1:28 memorandum and order in 10-P-1973. *Notice/Attest.