Photo of Gordon Orloff

Gordon Orloff is a Boston-based lawyer focusing on business, real estate and probate litigation in the trial and appellate courts of Massachusetts.  Gordon represents clients in contract disputes as well as in trade secret and copyright cases, title, easement and zoning and boundary disputes.

Gordon is aware that some matters are best resolved outside of the courtroom and he regularly represents clients in alternative dispute resolution. He is a trained mediator and has served as a case conciliator at the Boston Municipal Court.

Gordon has presented on various real estate topics for Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education and other continuing legal education programs and is a member of Real Estate Bar Association’s Litigation Committee.  He also is a regular contributor to the blog, Massachusetts Land Use Monitor, which reports on new developments in real estate and land-use law.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (pdf).  The court split 5-4 along the usual lines.  According to the dissent, this decision may have a significant impact on real estate developers and the boards and commissions that regulate them.A1029221.jpg

The plaintiff, Koontz, wanted to develop 3.7 acres of

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) yesterday issued its decision in the closely-watched case of DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre, Ltd.  The SJC has concluded that a broker can be liable for a written misrepresentation regarding zoning, despite languageshear negligence? in a commonly-used form purchase and sale agreement that some thought protected the broker from such liability.  We discussed the Appeals Court’s

This morning the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its decision in Fannie Mae v. Hendricks (pdf), a summary process case that raised the issue of whether the Massachusetts statutory form of foreclosure affidavit – which has been in use for 100 years – is sufficient to show compliance with a power of sale, thereby entitling a foreclosing mortgagee to possession of the premises.  The SJC held

A trend to hold managers of residential real estate responsible for dangerous conditions seems to be in the making.  The Worcester Superior Court’s decision earlier this year in Goodman v. First Horizon Loans (WOCV2011-2221) denied SingleSource Property Solutions, LLC’s motion to dismiss claims filed by a tenant at property managed – but not owned – by SingleSource. 

Just when we thought the Supreme Judicial Court’s Eaton decision (see our post here) had resolved the last big question regarding foreclosure requirements, another case is providing new foreclosure fodder.  Recently, the SJC requested amicus briefs in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Hendricks, SJC-11234.dog 

In this case a mortgagor, Hendricks, was evicted after his home was foreclosed.  He appealed, arguing that Mortgage Electronic

Last Friday the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its anxiously-anticipated decision (pdf) in Eaton v. Fannie Mae.  The decision is written by Justice Margot Botsford.

As foreshadowed in our previous posts here and here, Eaton resolves the debate among lower Massachusetts courts and federal judges over whether Massachusetts law requires a foreclosing mortgage holder to also hold

On February 22, 2012, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) re-issued its decision in Board of Health of Sturbridge v. Board of Health of Southbridge (pdf). 

The appellants had mailed their notice of appeal to the lower court on the last day for appeal, but it arrived and was docketed four days later.  The SJC initially released its decision in January, but

In a ruling that may presage the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s eagerly awaited decision in Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (see our related posts here and here), a divided Supreme Court of Michigan has reversed a Court of Appeals decision that required Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to hold both the promissory note and the

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) apparently is concerned about the potential consequences of ruling in Eaton v. Fannie Mae (see our prior post here) that a foreclosing mortgagee must hold both the mortgage and the underlying promissory note (see our discussion of this issue, and Land Court Judge Gordon H. Piper’s recent message to the SJC, here).  On January 6, the SJC entered