The First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Barbara Ann Charder.
22-P-0416
Mass. App. Ct.Mar 10, 2023Background:
- The First Church of Christ, Scientist holds the remainder interest; Ara (Barbara) Charder held a life estate in a Nantucket house since 2003. The Church sued under G. L. c. 242, § 1 for waste (seeking termination of the life estate and damages). Count II (damages) was dismissed and not appealed.
- The defendant failed to respond to discovery after her counsel withdrew. An architect inspected the exterior (May 8, 2019) and reported extensive exterior rot, roof and siding failures, broken windows, missing shingles/flashings, debris, and an unkempt yard — concluding severe deterioration consistent with long neglect.
- The court denied the Church’s initial summary judgment for lack of evidence about interior condition and repair costs, but ordered a post-judgment interior inspection. A Rule 16 order scheduled an inspection for October 15, 2021 and warned failure to comply could lead to judgment.
- On October 15 the defendant sought to limit who could enter, filed a protective order (denied), then refused entry to the Church’s counsel and accompanying experts, misrepresented her availability, and blocked the inspection; the Church left the island without an inspection.
- The Superior Court granted the Church’s motion for sanctions under Mass. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), entered final judgment terminating the life estate and vesting fee simple title in the Church. On appeal the Appeals Court affirmed, holding the default sanction was not an abuse of discretion and the complaint adequately alleged waste.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness of default sanction for discovery noncompliance | Church: defendant willfully and repeatedly defied discovery and court orders; warned that judgment could follow; lesser sanctions inadequate | Charder: default too severe; court should have used lesser sanctions; sanction disproportionate | Affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion; repeated, deliberate noncompliance (and denial of protective order) justified ultimate sanction; willfulness implicit |
| Sufficiency of complaint to state claim for waste | Church: complaint alleged substantial exterior deterioration from defendant’s neglect amounting to waste | Charder: complaint failed to state a claim; denial of summary judgment shows insufficiency | Affirmed: complaint pleaded sufficient factual allegations of waste; earlier summary-judgment denial concerned interior/damages evidence, not failure to plead a cause of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenleaf v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 426 (1986) (trial judge’s discretion on defaults reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sommer v. Maharaj, 451 Mass. 615 (2008) (factors to consider before dismissal for discovery violations)
- Robson v. Hallenbeck, 81 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (enumeration of factors guiding sanctions for discovery abuse)
- Roxse Homes Ltd. P’ship v. Roxse Homes, Inc., 399 Mass. 401 (1987) (serious noncompliance with court orders can justify ultimate sanction)
- Eagle Fund, Ltd. v. Sarkans, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 79 (2005) (persistent foot-dragging and violation of orders can warrant default judgment)
- Gos v. Brownstein, 403 Mass. 252 (1988) (willfulness may be implicit and need not be explicitly found if warranted)
- Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223 (2003) (discussing when a finding of willfulness is required)
- Matteson v. Walsh, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 402 (2011) (definition of waste as substantial injury from unreasonable neglect)
- Productor e Importadora de Papel, S.A. de C.V. v. Fleming, 376 Mass. 826 (1978) (even after default, court must determine whether unchallenged facts state a legitimate cause of action)