[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6289886,"mediaKeyId","2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5","parentId",2531878,"title","Appeals court hears dispute over adverse possession, neighbors argue permission vs. cumulative improvements","audioSeconds",1723,"startMs",1558000,"endMs",3281000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5&start=1558&end=3281","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5/thumbnail_1558000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6289886/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-dispute-over-adverse-possession-neighbors-argue-permission-vs-cumulative-improvements","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6289886-d30794212b2f37665987eca862fd2076/orig.mp4?Expires=1775868820&Signature=PiLXh~BDbdSOGILc3YPUApaob-bn2bscVHSqZPozp0CKQE6MfDI-dwgJPMKnHa9s6VRMDkqGga7UKokBxGLK2jmyYiGyTxBwD1v37SPHCyS0dQnCEoxPlYgR0Io2MyiZGzzCb2xHGVNMLCEhCGqUV~TN~p4BDfU6Vh0gjN9obBD57JKirWvenayByJK-yBfaMo99UFKrdIQLVGPjgjdHuc7ZEl4iiY7bv-TyyYwub2hgMEFz-dvovAOF26rVM6pfUTITqRzaTn~RGMy7aQrGITySvhVsxZxl-2vSdJisOKdTh8ynQEJd62OjvonTMs9KigfPN5PY91BNWWmzyZHhsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-10T15:30:54Z","article","At oral argument in 24P479, Johnson v. Holbrook, the appeals panel heard competing accounts of whether the Holbrooks' use of two contiguous areas—a driveway turnaround and a parcel behind it—amounted to adverse possession or instead was permitted use by agreement.

David Uidi, counsel for appellant Michael Johnson, told the panel the trial record shows Johnson gave the Holbrooks permission to \"use\" the turnaround area and to park there, and that the trial judge offered no factual basis for limiting that permission. Uidi argued testimony showed the owner repeatedly observed parking, including commercial vehicles, and did not object for years.

Maureen Carroll, counsel for appellees the Holbrooks, said the record shows many separate, continuous physical improvements—\"the pet cemetery, the fish pond, the kennel,\" movable basketball hoops, stacked cords of wood, and periodic vehicle repair and oil drips—that, taken together over decades, support the trial court's finding of adverse possession. Carroll described the evidence as a \"serratus paradox\" in which \"grains of sand add up\" to title-affecting use.

The panel questioned witnesses' visibility of the back parcel from the Johnsons' occupied portion of the property, the legal standard for \"open and notorious\" use, the effect of a preexisting vegetation boundary, and whether invitation onto the property or occasional visibility satisfied the requirement that the use be \"known to some who might reasonably be expected to communicate their knowledge to the owner.\" Counsel debated whether permissive uses such as a movable basketball hoop or temporary storage of wood could, alone or cumulatively, support adverse possession.

Both sides pointed to photographs, a survey conducted after a driveway expansion, testimony about decades of use, and the judge's in-person view of the property. Counsel for Johnson asked the panel to treat the turnaround and the rear parcel separately; counsel for the Holbrooks said the trial judge considered the totality of use and did not err.

After extended argument, the panel thanked counsel and said it would take the matter under advisement. No decision was announced from the bench.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Argument, March 10, 2025, Sacks, Hershfang, Tan, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","At oral argument in 24P479, Johnson v. Holbrook, the appeals panel heard competing accounts of whether the Holbrooks' use of two contiguous areas—a driveway turnaround and a parcel behind it—amounted to adverse possession or instead was permitted use by agreement.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6289876,"Panel hears dispute over rent-acceleration clause and missing amended lease; court to consider enforcement and double-recovery claim",1465,5334000,6799000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5&start=5334&end=6799","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5/thumbnail_5334000.jpg","/articles/6289876/Massachusetts/Panel-hears-dispute-over-rent-acceleration-clause-and-missing-amended-lease-court-to-consider-enforcement-and-double-recovery-claim","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6289876-fa6db01b0bcaa872283c282889173266/orig.mp4?Expires=1775868820&Signature=cwUM35wHdH4Mn6Y8dzit~VqpMbwwghSWZiFbMqVMWPaLA2ccYB367m4L69BQohcGlfkTFKdogE2l~0SVrmBYGalBuu0ltuN-7-in-SuHEP6kfz7sp~GA3iww7jvuGxPcDWbl7qptVTDllgk4Vv-WHzB4ANO6VaMT4Wbbq4pmDx4jBm3W4YjiMsrUTZ0VlQmt~6ktheSz6MeE344gi3ysAU1ypgm1Aj-UYWfsNkm9yRrY2nvEeTLRrE9be0brm7dssdCwstWFXR5JCYzqDV6U-GClfrJH2mMxmbu6AlFkr7aIr2Q4yeVKOEHukugPc7cE2LoCuwGGRglQEXoZn4MG8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","In appellate argument on case 24P375, Paramount MOB v. Tristan Medical Enterprises, counsel for the tenants and the landlord debated whether a rent-acceleration (liquidated-damages) clause in a commercial lease was enforceable and whether the landlord could collect accelerated rent while also receiving rent from a successor tenant.

Ben Dunlap, counsel for the appellants Tristan Medical Enterprises and Dr. Ryan Welter, described what he called a \"fundamental unfairness\": enforcement of rent acceleration would permit a double recovery when another commercial tenant occupied the space and paid rent during the remaining lease term. Dunlap pointed to precedent and urged the court to treat the liquidated-damages provision as invalid in the circumstances or to require a credit for rent collected from the successor tenant.

The panel and counsel discussed controlling precedent including Commissioner of Insurance decisions and a 2007 SJC decision in Cummings Properties, with the court and counsel parsing whether the modern rule permits enforcement of a liquidated-damages clause tied to nonpayment of rent even if other non-rent defaults exist. Dunlap said the record did not include the amended and restated lease dated September 29, 2017, and argued the trial court had no evidentiary basis to enforce a provision not before the court.

Opposing counsel and a supplemental speaker representing the plaintiff observed that the operative lease language had been used in district-court and superior-court proceedings and had been relied on in stipulated facts and summary-judgment filings. The panel examined testimony and documentary record entries about whether the amended-and-restated lease was produced in discovery and whether any missing document justified vacating the judgment.

The trial court had found the liquidated-damages provision negotiated between the parties and the trial judge later made findings about the lessee's sophistication. Appellants challenged those findings and said missing lease documents and the factual record undermined the trial court's reliance on the provision.

After hearing argument, the panel took the matter under advisement. No decision was announced from the bench.","In appellate argument on case 24P375, Paramount MOB v. Tristan Medical Enterprises, counsel for the tenants and the landlord debated whether a rent-acceleration (liquidated-damages) clause in a commercial lease was enforceable and whether the landlord could collect accelerated rent while also receiving rent from a successor tenant.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6289881,"Appeals court hears argument over whether early retirement breached alimony agreement or warranted contempt",1988,3352000,5340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5&start=3352&end=5340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5/thumbnail_3352000.jpg","/articles/6289881/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-argument-over-whether-early-retirement-breached-alimony-agreement-or-warranted-contempt","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6289881-b9805360c6d9abb3bc2c052a8d8d8ac1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775868820&Signature=m2AhsRJEmWDZvht8NtOZCWz6sWS5zwZ9nInWNpuq8PTc5g5i~wp0exHqCsX2WoHwxug-EYN5jkgliLXLYRcP-R1r3HlrQ1iIlDfuIm0nkQqBWN7nctrbNR~safI4x9ZiwPQ6ldEG5F8zhOI~Ocju199o26wF7aRsVP3LjsTyBucFAmG4w2B1Ky3LYqjcUclFzo9lHS3vglka1haZU5yiq3LlP4hLPjx5a3bF4yRTckLbjVpI4OAlECJlTiyShqxK3P~YfVHdV3aoBW7JjBJgXEwWcY3rmteroduMjyE7Gdr7kFgSJ4gGlYcN~9y4ROo7x-UvaP0uHrMdym3QgGe7WQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richard Novich, representing appellant Leslie Scopa, argued to the appeals panel in case 24P703 that the trial judge \"abused her discretion\" by declining to find Dr. Braunstein in contempt after he stopped paying alimony without first obtaining a court modification. Novich asked the court to interpret the parties' separation agreement as requiring a modification filing before the husband could unilaterally retire and alter alimony obligations.

Novich emphasized language in the alimony exhibit of the agreement that, he said, showed the parties negotiated both (a) a formula tied to the husband's base salary and (e) express limits on termination events; the result, Novich contended, was that the husband could not simply decide to stop working without seeking court approval. \"Not before he files a modification and asks for permission,\" Novich told the panel when asked whether the husband could retire and stop paying.

Opposing counsel Carolyn Van Tyn said civil contempt has a higher burden—clear and convincing proof of a clear, unequivocal court order—and argued the separation agreement does not contain clear-controlling language that would make contempt the proper remedy. Van Tyn told the court that other remedies and equitable relief are available where a party alleges a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing but that contempt requires more specific contractual or order language.

The panel asked detailed questions about contract interpretation, merger of separation agreements into divorce judgments, and precedent the parties cited (including Larson, Talvatai, and cases discussing the Alimony Reform Act). Novich argued merger-versus-survival distinctions did not change basic rules of contract interpretation and urged the panel to consider the parties' bargain as a whole. Van Tyn responded that remedies differ where a separation agreement survives a judgment and that contempt is generally inappropriate where the alleged breach is best remedied by declaratory or equitable relief.

The record also reflects procedural contested points: the husband filed a complaint for modification that remains pending; the trial judge crossed off both \"allowed\" and \"denied\" on a particular docket entry and scheduled a contempt hearing; and the trial court did not make explicit findings on health or good-faith motives that counsel debated as relevant to remedy and sanction.

After argument from both sides, the panel said it would take the case under advisement. No decision was announced from the bench.","In Scopa v. Braunstein, counsel debated whether the husband's decision to stop working and cease alimony payments without first obtaining a court modification constituted civil contempt or a contract dispute for equitable relief; the court took the matter under advisement.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6289891,"Appeals court hears challenge to sole legal custody award, panel takes case under advisement",1364,167000,1531000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5&start=167&end=1531","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2531878-9b4c75d66e48be46855019282b30cfe5/thumbnail_167000.jpg","/articles/6289891/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-sole-legal-custody-award-panel-takes-case-under-advisement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6289891-58f256009fe2e6806ea0a7f9cb837a97/orig.mp4?Expires=1775868820&Signature=O6YC8k~rDZSKzDUgBpZ15ye3E8NbeHKPTEmZmcbm3lm-ZNtAKFrIMxVaxoMBcBef~2M6J8mYO0LPBzyTlyxuvgu8YSeQTtDmYY8Hp3VQ7uT3rS-nsKU72vvD9-Rqb0KtSXx3CCC3aTgz8oG0neIUDO~59oOFZlU2GsFlCjugnjKZBallhwm9bNXciZ6mdBF9yjyELf5l7hIrgpu3BOIO6GhdS61PZ93OvhzTYx8rtGEogqLVBftVg2lPy6qIKKtkvxC0AcNCRiFZbtNLZep4LQQtwmWF16mQ-N8YwGM2sL767s0AoOPAuOlH7dB8KZhwFPXC5lfJGD8o9XVgD-Q1xg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Justice Peter Sachs, presiding for an appeals panel that included Justice Rachel Hirschfang and Justice Gloria Tan, called the first case, 24P606, Noyes v. Mancuso, and noted the appellee had not filed a brief; \"when you don't file a brief, there's no obligation\" and the court would allow the appellee shortened argument time.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge abused her discretion by finding the father suitable to receive sole legal custody despite evidence the father had suffered from depression, had not monitored a court-ordered communication app, and had relied at times on substitute caregivers the appellant contends were unsuitable.

Mark Papirio, attorney for appellant Maria Mancuso, told the panel the trial court gave too little weight to evidence that the father \"was actively suffering from depression\" and that his mental health affected the child in several ways. Papirio argued the record showed the father had stopped following the court communication app, missed notifications that the child needed behavioral-health care, and at trial \"denied that that ever happened,\" despite testimony from the mother and a mental-health provider.

Dwayne Noyce, the father and appellee, told the panel he has been \"present in [his daughter's] life since day one,\" described efforts to provide for her and to keep her in school, and disputed characterizations that he was unfit. Noyce said he had maintained steady employment over the years and described being the child's primary caretaker during his parenting time.

The judges focused on legal standards for review and on specific factual findings in the trial court record. Justice Sachs quoted the appellant's brief and pressed whether the trial judge's credibility determinations and factual findings—such as that no clinical diagnosis of depression had been proved—were clearly erroneous. The panel asked whether any factor required by law was omitted from the judge's consideration and whether the judge gave improper weight to particular evidence.

Counsel debated discrete factual points reflected in the trial court findings: who facilitated the child's medical and mental-health appointments, whether the father knew of a behavioral-health episode, the significance of the father's intermittent work schedule for his designation as a primary caretaker, and the father's choice of substitute caregivers (which Papirio highlighted as including an individual with mental-health issues and another who had been \"cautioned for carelessness with firearms\"). Counsel also discussed the Guardian ad Litem's report and the child's expressed concerns about friends and social ties.

The panel heard argument from both sides and posed multiple questions about the standard of review. After closing remarks from counsel, the panel announced it would \"take it under advisement.\"","An appeals court heard argument in Noyes v. Mancuso over a trial judge's award of sole legal custody to the father; attorneys debated whether the father's mental health, participation in a court communication app and choices of substitute caretakers showed he was unsuitable. The court took the case under advisement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears dispute over adverse possession, neighbors argue permission vs. cumulative improvements

Panel hears dispute over rent-acceleration clause and missing amended lease; court to consider enforcement and double-recovery claim

Appeals court hears argument over whether early retirement breached alimony agreement or warranted contempt

Appeals court hears challenge to sole legal custody award, panel takes case under advisement