Home Mass Bay Long Pond Road Realty Trust, Donald J. Correa as President of Mass Bay Realty Development, Inc., Trustee v. Cornerstone Developers of New England, Inc., Zion Community Housing & Property Management, LLC, the New Testament Church of Cedarville, and Plymouth Planning Board

PS 07-346973

April 17, 2009


Grossman, J.


This case was initiated in the Plymouth Superior Court and thereafter transferred to this court on May 7, 2007. By virtue of its complaint, plaintiff, an abutter, sought to annul the ‘Modification and Approval of Definitive Subdivision’ Decision of the Town of Plymouth Planning Board rendered in favor of the private defendants on December 29, 2006. Plaintiff sought too, a determination that the Planning Board Decision constituted an abuse of discretion “pursuant to Chapter 40A and/or Chapter 41.” After a lengthy period of procedural sparring, the parties endeavored to finalize a draft settlement agreement, but to no avail.

By foreclosure deed dated December 24, 2008 [Note 1] the defendant Cornerstone Properties and Development, Inc. (Cornerstone) lost title to two parcels that were to have provided access to the subdivision which is the subject of the instant matter. Lacking such access, “which access was integral to the subdivision” [Note 2] Cornerstone applied to the Planning Board for rescission of the Definitive Subdivision Plan. That rescission was granted by the board on March 2, 2009. Thereafter, on March 23, 2009, the private defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss arguing that the instant matter had become moot. On April 15, 2009, the Motion was heard and taken under advisement.

As a consequence of the Planning Board’s action, the plaintiff has effectively obtained the outcome that it sought when it filed its complaint. “Litigation ordinarily is considered moot when the party claiming to be aggrieved ceases to have a personal stake in its outcome.” Galaitsis v. Board of Appeals of Lexington, 451 Mass. 270 , 274 (2008). That is plainly the situation that pertains in the instant action. Consequently, this litigation has been rendered moot by the March 2nd rescission of the Plymouth Planning Board.

Additionally, the private defendants seek attorneys fees owing to plaintiff’s “refusal to voluntarily dismiss the action as moot” [Note 3] Suffice it to say that in the absence of compelling legal analysis or authority, this court is not prepared to accede to such request.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the said defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Case as Being Moot is hereby ALLLOWED. It is further

ORDERED that the said defendants’ Request for Attorneys Fees is hereby DENIED.

Judgment to issue accordingly.

By the Court. (Grossman, J.)


Deborah J. Patterson


Dated: April 17, 2009


[Note 1] Recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds at Book 36643, Pages 286-290 and Pages 296-300.

[Note 2] Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, § A.

[Note 3] Id, § B.