MISC 16-000652
Mass. Land Ct.Oct 18, 2021Background
- The dispute concerns a 42-acre Taunton property (Whittenton Mill) owned by Jefferson Development; Whittenton holds a first mortgage. The Mill was dilapidated and had nonworking alarm/suppression systems and some tenants.
- Taunton Fire Department performed five separate "fire watches" between Dec. 2011 and Sept. 2015 (2011, Early 2012, Late 2012, Fourth Watch (Jan 2013–Mar 2014), and Fifth Watch (June–Sept 2015)).
- The City invoiced Jefferson for firefighter wages plus a 10% service charge, and recorded multiple Statements of Claim at the registry (Statement #1 recorded Nov. 8, 2013; #2 Feb. 4, 2014; #3 and #4 recorded Sept. 21, 2015). The City also recorded a tax taking in Aug. 2015.
- Jefferson filed bankruptcy in Jan. 2014; the City filed a proof of claim and later halted some collection efforts out of concern for the automatic stay. The bankruptcy trustee abandoned the property June 19, 2015.
- The Land Court held that five watches occurred, but the City perfected liens only for the Late 2012 watch ($3,190.40) and the Fifth Watch ($85,159.19), producing perfected liens totaling $88,349.59.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City complied with G.L. c.148 §5 notice/abatement requirements for the 2011 and Early 2012 watches | City argued invoices and later 2013 Statement satisfied the statutes and Statement #1 perfected the lien | Jefferson argued no written abatement order was served before those watches and statutory steps were not met | Court: Not proven; lien not perfected for 2011 and Early 2012 (alternative finding: if reversed on appeal, Statement #1 includes those amounts) |
| Whether City complied with §5 for the Late 2012 watch | City relied on the Dec. 5, 2012 written abatement notice, invoicing and Statement #1 recorded within 90 days after account rendered | Jefferson did not contest receipt/adequacy of the Dec. 2012 abatement notice | Court: Notice, account, and recording satisfied §5; lien allowed for $3,190.40 |
| Whether City perfected lien for the Fourth Watch (Jan 2013–Mar 2014) | City argued it provided pre-watch notice and later recorded Statements of Claim | Jefferson argued City never rendered a post-completion accounting within the statute so debt never became "due"; City also asserted bankruptcy stay issues | Court: No accounting was rendered after Fourth Watch ended, so §5 debt never became due; lien not perfected for Fourth Watch |
| Whether City perfected lien for the Fifth Watch (June–Sept 2015) | City argued Fifth Watch was an agreed reinstatement of the Fourth Watch, prior notice sufficed, the City rendered an account (2015 Statement), and Statement #4 was timely recorded | Jefferson disputed perfection for earlier watches but Fifth Watch recording and account were timely | Court: Fifth Watch perfected; lien allowed for $85,159.19 |
Key Cases Cited
- LHPNJ, LLC v. Jefferson Development Partners, LLC, 29 LCR 99 (2021) (Land Court decision setting forth statutory steps under G.L. c.148 §5 and treating when abatement charges become due and lien perfection requirements)