Opinion
No. 11–P–707.
2012-10-22
Donald COLLINS v. BECKERT SAGAMORE APARTMENTS, LLC, & others.
By the Court (COHEN, RUBIN & CARHART, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.
Background. On February 16, 2010, Donald Collins filed a complaint against Beckert Sagamore Apartments, LLC (Beckert), Lynn Housing Authority and Neighborhood Development (LHAND), and Charles Gaeta, claiming violations of Collins's constitutional rights of due process, as well as violations of “other rights.”
The complaint was never served on LHAND or Charles Gaeta. LHAND is a public employer.
Collins had previously filed a complaint against Beckert for wrongful eviction. That complaint was resolved by an April, 2006, summary process agreement whereby the parties agreed that Collins would vacate the premises at 80 Sagamore Street, Apt. 102, Lynn, and Beckert would not enforce judgment for rent owed.
In response to the February, 2010, complaint, LHAND and Charles Gaeta filed a motion to dismiss. On December 14, 2010, the motion judge
granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on the grounds that Collis had no right to remain in the apartment after his cousin, the lawful tenant, Charles Collins died; that the issues were resolved by the summary process agreement; that there was no presentment to LHAND; and that Collins was properly denied occupancy at 80 Sagamore Street.
The motion judge was the same judge who had approved the April, 2006, summary process agreement.
Discussion. Collins argues that Beckert conspired with LHAND to unlawfully evict him from 80 Sagamore Street. Any issues regarding his right to remain in the apartment were resolved by the summary process agreement. Settlement agreements involving self-represented litigants should be reviewed by the presiding judge for voluntariness. See Judicial Guidelines for Civil Hearings Involving Self–Represented Litigants § 3.4 (2006). We discern nothing in the record that indicates that the summary process agreement was the product of fraud or coercion, or that Collins entered into the agreement unknowingly. Collins agreed to vacate the apartment and in exchange Beckert agreed not to enforce judgment for rent allegedly owed by Collins.
Collins also asserts various claims against LHAND and Charles Gaeta in his capacity as executive director. However, Collins never presented LHAND or Gaeta with written notice of his claim, as required by statute. Summary judgment is proper when a plaintiff has not made proper presentment to a public employer prior to commencing suit. Alex v. Boston Water & Sewer Commn., 45 Mass.App.Ct. 914, 914 (1998). Further, Collins's claims against LHAND and Gaeta are barred by the statute of limitations. General Laws c. 258, § 4, inserted by St.1978, c. 512, § 15, provides that “[n]o civil action shall be brought more than three years after the date upon which such cause of action accrued.”
Judgment affirmed.