In an “unpublished” decision in Lortie v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Westport, an Appeals Court panel last month reversed a Superior Court decision that had dismissed, on summary judgment, the plaintiff abutters’ appeal of an amendment to a previously-issued variance.  The original variance allowed the defendant developer to demolish 11 apartments and replace them with 11 condominium units.  The plaintiffs didn’t

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is soliciting amicus briefs in Galiastro v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., an appeal that presents the issue of whether the defendant, MERS, has standing to foreclose in its own right as the named mortgagee in a mortgage, when it does not have any ownership interest or rights in the underlying promissory note.  The SJC

On Valentine’s Day, the Boston Bar Association’s Land Use & Development Committee, co-chaired by my Rackemann colleague and fellow blogger Johanna Schneider, will host a lunch meeting to discuss recent developments in the law of standing.  The meeting will feature guest speakers Adam Cederbaum of the City of Boston’s Office of Corporation Counsel and noted land use attorney

In November, 2010, we reported on the Appeals Court’s decision in 81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline (pdf).  The court found that the defendant’s effort to rebut the plaintiff abutter’s presumption of standing – an effort that was based solely on the abutter’s deposition testimony, in which he offered his own unsupported opinions that he had beenNo Standing harmed

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

The Appeals Court recently had another occasion to address standing in the zoning context.  In an “unpublished” decision under the court’s Rule 1:28, a three-judge panel in Brooks v. Chelmsford Hillside Gardens, LLC (pdf) reversed an underlying Land Court decision (pdf) that had dismissed, for lack of standing, down the drain.jpgan appeal of a comprehensive permit for an affordable housing development under M.G.L. c. 40B.