Where, as here, the tax consequences are uncertain, the judge must take that uncertainty into account and consider whether there are alternatives that will accomplish the judge’s purposes but avoid the potential that his decision will trigger adverse and unwanted tax consequences.

Ironcraft Fabriating Inc. v. Steel Connections Et Al

The amount specified in this statement 2is controlling as notice to an opposing party of pretrial removal rights2 because any other approach exposes the process to the uncertainty attendant on a party evaluating damage exposure on the basis of unquantified or partially quantified averments of injury contained in pleadings. Failure to remove a case was deemed a waiver of various rights, including, relevant here, the right to appeal the resulting judgment to the Superior Court for a trial de novo.

Bush v. Bush

In dissolution action, the Barnstable Superior Court, John V. Harvey, J., refused to order former wife to transfer her share of equity in marital home to trust for benefit of parties’ son or to modify or eliminate alimony. Following sua sponte transfer of case.

Click to Read:  Bush v. Bush.pdf

Decastro v. Decastro

Husband appealed from judgment of divorce entered in the Probate and Family Court, Worcester County, William J. McManus, J., contesting division of marital property. The Appeals Court, Christopher J. Armstrong, J., granted husband’s motion for stay of portion of judgment which awarded wife 50% of stock in company

Click to Read: deCastro v. deCastro.pdf

Gidwani v. Wasserman

Landlord brought action in contract against tenant for rent payments due and tenant answered and brought action against landlord for losses sustained in burglary occurring after landlord disconnected burglar alarm in store while closing it down. The actions were consolidated for trial.

Click to Read: Gidwani v. Wasserman.pdf

Hall v. Selig

Suit by vendees to compel vendors to convey land pursuant to contract. From an adverse decree of the Superior Court, Good, J., the vendors appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court held that where vendors immediately following execution of contract informed purchasers of existing attachment on land…

Click to Read: Hall v. Selig.pdf

Wolfe v. Wolfe

Husband sought divorce. The Superior Court, Norfolk County, Robert M. Ford, J., granted husband and wife divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of their marriage and awarded wife alimony. The husband appealed. The Appeals Court, Cutter, J., held that principal of revocable spendthrift trust which was created for husband’s exclusive benefit during his life, could be invaded to satisfy alimony payments to wife.

Click to Read: Wolfe v. Wolfe.pdf

Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Defendant argues that as a matter of law, assuming plaintiff’s allegations to be true, its conduct did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to support a claim for infliction of severe emotional distress. The issue thus is whether plaintiff in viewing all disputed facts in his favor would be able to collect for infliction of severe mental distress. I rule that there is a factual question as to whether the above-described conduct could reasonably be found to be so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, and, therefore, rule that plaintiff has raised a question for the jury.

Click to Read: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.pdf