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.

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

In a setback for real estate brokers – and for the form agreement that they and many real estate lawyers use – the Appeals Court ruled last month that a broker could be held liable for a written misrepresentation regarding zoning.  The case is DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre, Ltd. (pdf).Broker (A0913137).jpg

Before addressing the substance of the decision, it’s interesting

Association trustees are batting .500 in two recent and colorful Appeals Court decisions.  Trustees of a homeowner’s association got on base in Rawan v. Massad (pdf), in which the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Massad, baseball and bat.jpgdecided to help their son and others in the community “play ball” by creating a regulation baseball diamond on their property.  The town had only

In previous posts (here and here) we’ve discussed the question of whether ownership of the mortgage and the note must be unified in the same person.  Superior Court Judge Cornelius Moriarty has now weighed in, with his split decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Mack v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 29 Mass. L.

In the Superior Court case Adamson v. MERS, the plaintiff foreclosed-on borrower is challenging the foreclosure on several grounds.  The defendant mortgage lender and its loan servicer recently moved to dismiss the case, and in an interesting decision (pdf), Rackemann alum Judge Raymond Brassard allowed the motion to dismiss in part.  Most interestingly, Judge Brassard addressed the

Last month the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez  (pdf).  We discussed the oral argument of that appeal in this earlier post

Nunez concerned a summary process (i.e. eviction) action filed by Fannie Mae against a tenant living in a foreclosed residential property.  That action was pending, but not completed, before the effective date