Scrivener license recovery trial#

In between these two lots lies an undeveloped parcel, lot 11, owned by Ritter as trustee of the Birch Knoll Trust. The Bergmanns live at 211 Common Lane, also known as lot 12. Ritter and her husband, Sherwin Ritter, own a home at 195 Common Lane, Beverly (also described as lot 10 on a plan of the land). Summary of findings of fact and decision.

Scrivener license recovery trial#

242, В§ 7 (2) even if there is jurisdiction, the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting Ritter to amend her complaint on the eve of trial to add a claim under В§ 7 and (3) restoration cost was not the proper measure of damages. In this appeal, the Bergmanns assert that: (1) the Land Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to award damages pursuant to G. Ritter, trustee of the Birch Knoll trust (Ritter), to be in the amount of $43,594, and trebled damages under G. The judge found that the defendants, David Bergmann and Sherri Bergmann (the Bergmanns) had wilfully cut down the trees and calculated the damage to the plaintiff, Joan C. At the heart of this appeal is a decision of a judge of the Land Court to award treble damages to the plaintiff landowner on her claim that the defendants cut down trees on the plaintiff's land. Long, J., and a motion to alter or amend the judgment was also heard by him.ДUFFLY, J. Д¬IVIL ACTION commenced in the Land Court Department on October 30, 2002. c.242, В§ 7, for the defendants' act of cutting down trees on the plaintiff's land wilfully and without license, the Land Court judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding a restoration cost measure of damages, where diminution in market value was unsatisfactory as a measure of damages, in that the damage was not only the potential loss in the value of the land (which the plaintiff hoped to sell), but also in the loss of the plaintiff's privacy further, the judge's finding that the cost of restoration was reasonably necessary was amply supported by the evidence. In a civil action seeking damages pursuant to G. 242, В§ 7, where the amendment, which did not present a new set of facts or a new theory of recovery, did not prejudice the defendants. In a civil action seeking damages for the defendants' act of cutting down trees on the plaintiff's land wilfully and without license, the Land Court judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the plaintiff, on the eve of trial, to amend her complaint to conform to the evidence by adding a claim for treble damages pursuant to G. c.242, В§ 7, for damages arising from the defendants' act of cutting down trees on the plaintiff's land wilfully and without license, where that claim was ancillary to the plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief respecting the defendants' alleged illegal encroachments on the plaintiff's property. The Land Court properly had jurisdiction to adjudicate a plaintiff landowner's claim, pursuant to G. Practice, Civil, Motion to amend, Damages. 296 JanuJSuffolk County Present: DUFFLY, GRASSO, & COWIN, JJ.