Residential Real Estate

The client, who owned a multifamily investment property, had been cited by the town health and code inspector for multiple violations, including mold infestation. A long-time tenant, who was making a claim for personal injuries stemming from the alleged lengthy exposure to mold, had initially called the inspector. The client had few other assets and wanted to file bankruptcy, which, in essence, would have turned the property over the tenant. We advised against this. We located an insurance policy to cover the legal defense and some of the counts brought by the plaintiff in her complaint. At the same time, the client put the property on the market and found a buyer. Despite settling the plaintiff’s suit, paying off a number of substantial liens and defraying the expenses associated with defending his interests, the client was able to put a fair amount of cash in his pocket.

The plaintiffs purchased property in 1980, believing it to contain a 30-foot easement. In 1991, they were made aware of a claim that the easement was 50 feet wide. In June of 1995, plaintiffs filed negligence claims against the title company and the surveyor.

We filed for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations contained in M.G.L. ch. 260, §2A governing claims sounding in negligence or by the three-year statute of limitations found in M.G.L. ch. 260, §4 governing tort or contract actions for malpractice. We successfully argued that the statute of limitations begins to run from the time the plaintiffs discover or reasonably should discover that they have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. Therefore, the statute of limitations expired by the end of 1994. The action was dismissed.