Golub v. Milpo, Inc.

30 Citing cases

  1. Church v. General Elec. Co.

    138 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D. Mass. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the continuing tort doctrine applied to nuisance and trespass claims

    It does not have authority to litigate "the particular claim of an individual unit owner." Golub v. Milpo, 402 Mass. 397, 401, 522 N.E.2d 954 (1988). Therefore, in cases in which a condition on a common area harms only one unit, unit owners have had standing to sue regarding the common area.

  2. Calloway v. St. Paul Fire Marine

    2000 Mass. App. Div. 85 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

    " While there are few specific cases dealing with insurance claims and condominiums, under G.L.c. 183A, "the trustees act only for the benefit of all the unit owners." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397 (1988) quoting Glickman v. Brown, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 229, 236 (1985). A condominium association cannot compromise a unit owner's claim against a developer for damage to a unit caused by a leaky roof. Golub v. Milpo,Inc., 402 Mass. 397 (1988).

  3. Berish v. Bornstein

    437 Mass. 252 (Mass. 2002)   Cited 122 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding remedy for willful breach of fiduciary duty resulting in personal gain to include disgorgement

    "This division between individual and common rights is basic to the theory of condominium ownership." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 401-402 (1988), citing Rohan, The "Model Condominium Code" — A Blueprint for Modernizing Condominium Legislation, 78 Colum. L. Rev. 587, 587 n. 3 (1978), and Schwartz, Condominium: A Hybrid Castle in the Sky, 44 B.U. L. Rev. 137, 139 (1964). "It affords an opportunity to combine the legal benefits of fee simple ownership with the economic advantages of joint acquisition and operation of various amenities including recreational facilities, contracted caretaking, and security safeguards" (footnote omitted).

  4. Union v. Bloomberg

    88 Mass. App. Ct. 671 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    “The power of trustees ‘[t]o conduct litigation ... involving the common areas and facilities' includes the power to settle claims prior to or in the course of litigation.” Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 401, 522 N.E.2d 954 (1988), quoting from c. 183A, § 10(b )(4). Accordingly, on our reading, § 10(j ) serves to preclude the declarant's use of trust funds for its own purposes in the initial phases of the project, as specified therein.

  5. Welsh v. McNeil

    162 A.3d 135 (D.C. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    It is quite another thing when the association, representing all its members, does act and opts to resolve the dispute differently, without enforcement of the bylaws. Generally speaking, a homeowners association has the power to release or compromise any claim it has the right to assert, and to do so over the objections of individual homeowners, who then are bound by the association's resolution of the claim.See Frantz v. CBI Fairmac Corp., 229 Va. 444, 331 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1985) (holding that "because a unit owners' association has the authority ... to assert a claim for the violation of a common right, it necessarily has the authority to compromise the claim" over the objection of individual unit holders, all of whom are "bound by the compromise"); Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 522 N.E.2d 954, 957–58 (Mass. 1988) (explaining that association's power to conduct litigation relating to common areas and facilities "includes the power to settle claims prior to or in the course of litigation" on behalf of the unit owners). I do not suggest, however, that a homeowner's association may release or compromise an individual member's claim against a third party for damages to the member's personal property (as opposed to the common elements).

  6. Currier v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners

    965 N.E.2d 829 (Mass. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that either "intentional, purposeful discrimination" or disparate impact is necessary to a claim under the Public Accommodations Statute

    Greater Lawrence Sanitary Dist. v. North Andover, 439 Mass. 16, 20–21, 785 N.E.2d 337 (2003), quoting Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120, 571 N.E.2d 357 (1991), and Commonwealth v. One 1987 Mercury Cougar Auto., 413 Mass. 534, 536, 600 N.E.2d 571 (1992). "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact...." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400, 522 N.E.2d 954 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974).

  7. Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc.

    460 Mass. 91 (Mass. 2011)   Cited 35 times
    In Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 460 Mass. 91, 93-94, 950 N.E.2d 40 (2011), a workers' compensation insurer concluded that an employee of an insured may have filed a fraudulent claim, and it therefore referred that individual to the private investigatory body known as the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB).

    2. Standard of review. "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact. . . ."Locator Servs. Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer Receiver Gen., 447 Mass. 837, 846 (2005), quoting Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002).

  8. Coombes v. Florio

    450 Mass. 182 (Mass. 2007)   Cited 34 times
    Accepting duty to warn patient of driving impairment caused by prescribed drugs but rejecting plurality opinion that purportedly recognized broader duty of reasonable care to third parties

    "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact. . . ." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988), citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). The plaintiff has presented evidence that the known side effects of Sacca's medication included drowsiness, lightheadedness, and altered consciousness.

  9. Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos

    445 Mass. 353 (Mass. 2005)   Cited 24 times
    Interpreting words "in no event" in statute of repose to foreclose possibility of any exception

    Discussion. "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party [the plaintiff here], there exist genuine issues of material fact or the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c).

  10. Locator Services Group, Ltd. v. Treasurer & Receiver General

    443 Mass. 837 (Mass. 2005)   Cited 45 times
    Meaning of term should be construed in harmony with surrounding statutory sections

    "A court must deny a motion for summary judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there exist genuine issues of material fact. . . ." Golub v. Milpo, Inc., 402 Mass. 397, 400 (1988). See Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974).