COSTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs. JOHN PYERS, JEANNE D. PYERS, and PAWTUCKET CREDIT UNION
MISC 11-449974
August 2, 2012
Sands, J.
COSTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs. JOHN PYERS, JEANNE D. PYERS, and PAWTUCKET CREDIT UNION
Sands, J.
Plaintiff Costa Development, LC, filed its unverified Complaint on July 1, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 231A, § 1 and G. L. c. 185, § 1, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief relative to the validity of two easements involving the installation of a water line and a drainage basin across property owned by Defendant John Pyers. Plaintiff also alleged breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, promissory estoppel, interference with expected business advantage, and damages relative to G. L. c. 231, § 6F. [Note 1] Defendant John Pyers filed his Answer and Counterclaim on August 23, 2011, also alleging damages pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6F. [Note 2] A case management conference was held on August 25, 2011. Plaintiff filed its Answer to Counterclaim on August 12, 2011. Pawtucket filed its Answer on September 14, 2011.
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion for Entry of Separate and Final Judgment on March 7, 2012, together with supporting memorandum, Statement of Material Facts, Affidavits of Michael Costa (two) (principal of Plaintiff), Matthew D. Slepkow, Esq. (attorney for the Pyers and for Pawtucket during the Pyers' purchase of ANR1, as hereinafter defined, ("Slepkow")), and Robert G. Funke, Esq. (attorney for Plaintiff), and deposition transcripts of John Pyers, Jeanne Pyers and Michael Costa. [Note 3] Plaintiff also filed its Motion to Strike certain exhibits submitted by the Pyers. The Pyers filed their Opposition to the summary judgment motion on March 7, 2012, together with supporting memorandum. On March 29, the Pyers filed their Motion to Strike certain exhibits of Plaintiff, Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, and Affidavit of John Pyers. A hearing was held on all motions on May 21, 2012, and the matter was taken under advisement. A decision of today's date has been issued.
In accordance with that decision, it is:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Exhibit 20 is struck from the Summary Judgment Record. [Note 4]
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Exhibit 21 is struck from the Summary Judgment Record.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff reserved a Water Easement on ANR1.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff reserved a Drainage Easement on ANR1.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff reserved the Drainage Easement on ANR1 for a Drainage Pond.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's argument that implied easements exist fails.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that John Pyers had actual notice of both easements.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that recorded documents were sufficient to place John Pyers on constructive notice of both easements.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that arguments regarding the application of the Seekonk Subdivision Rules and Regulations to the Water Easement and the Drainage Easement are not relevant.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that any exchange that occurred on the existence of easements between John Pyers and Slepkow is not relevant to the issues in this case.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Jeanne Pyers, through Deed 2, took property rights subject to whatever easements her husband took pursuant to Deed 1.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.
By the Court. (Sands, J.)
FOOTNOTES
[Note 1] Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on September 2, 2011, adding Jeanne D. Pyers (together with John Pyers, the "Pyers") and Pawtucket Credit Union ("Pawtucket") as Defendants. Pawtucket has not appeared at any hearings.
[Note 2] The Pyers filed their Answer and Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint on September 8, 2011, also alleging damages pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6F.
[Note 3] Plaintiff titles his motion "Partial Summary Judgment" because he leaves open counts VII and VIII relative to its G. L. c. 231, § 6F claim and its interference with business advantage claim. This court does not have jurisdiction over the interference with business advantage claim. Plaintiff may bring a separate c.231, § 6F motion after a decision is rendered in this case.
[Note 4] Exhibits 20 and 21 were submitted by John Pyers and Jeanne Pyers in their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And Final Judgment Pursuant To Rule 54(B).