Upload
rushdiesrocket
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 1/18
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
LAND COURT DEPARTMENT
BRISTOL, SS
LANDING AT SOUTH PARK
CONDOMiNIUM ASSN.,Pl aintiff / D efendant- in-Counterclaim
\/
BORDEN LIGHTMARiNA, INC.,
DOCKET NO. 254067
Defendant/Piaintiff-in- *
Counterclaim *
MEMOR.I{NDUM OF LAW OF PLAINTIFF I DEFENDANT-IN-COUNTERCLAIM.
ARGUMENT
I.The Marina has violated the Erosion Controi Easement and Visual
Easement.
*The basic principle governing the interpretation of deeds is that their
meaning derived from the presumed intent of the grantor, is to be
ascertained from the words used in the written instrument construed when
necessary in the light of the attendant circumstances." Sheftl v. Lebel, 44
Mass.App. Ct. 175, 179 (1998). "Similarly, with respect to an easement
created by a conveyance, ltlhe extent of [the] easement .,.. is fixed by the
conveyance, Restatement of Property S 482 (19aa\; and the "language
(used)... is the primary source lor the ascertainment of the meaning of [the]
conveyance." Id. s 4s3 comment (d), cited in shefti v. Lebel, 44 Mass.
ApP. Ct" atl79'
i
-lnLEcoPf
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 2/18
The key inquiry then is the explicit language of the easements as set
forth in ai1 relevant deeds.
On September 30, 1986, the Green River Realty Trust conveyed Lot 3,
comprising 3.51 acres, to John C. Lund and Brian R. Corey, by deed
recorded in the Fall River Registry in Book 1724, Page 301. This
conveyance was made subject to two easements for the benefit of Lots
1 and 2, set forth in the deed to Lot 3 as follows:
"subject to a visual easement for the benefit of Lot 1 and Lot2 on that plan of iand hereinabove mentioned under the terms
of which no structure shall be erected above nineteen (19) feet
Mean Sea Level on that portion of Lot 3 directly to the west of
Lot 1 and Lot 2. Excluded from the definition of structure and
permitted above nineteen (19) feet Mean Sea Level shall be
pilings supporting floats and piers, hvac exhausts andlorintake which shall be reasonably screened, trees, shrubbery,picnic tables and things or like nature and subject further toa twenty (2O) foot wide easement for the benefit of Lots 1 and
2 for construction and maintenanee of drainage system and
for construction and maintenance of a sloped, gradederosion and flood protection barrier." (Emph. added)
Amended Complaint fl 11; Tr. Exh. 1.
On September 30, 1986 the Green River Realty Trust conveyed Lots 1
and. 2,comprisin g of 7.73tacres, to the Landing at South Park, inc.,
a Massachusetts business corporation since dissolved, by a deed
recorded in the Fall River Registry in Book 1724, Page 303' This
conveyance included the rights of tu'o easements over Lot 3 for the
benefit of Lots 1 and 2, set forth in said deed n'hich provided as
follows:
"Appurtenant to this conveyance is the benefit of a visualeasement over a portion of Lot 3 on that plan of land
?
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 3/18
hereinabove described under the terms of which no structureshall be erected nineteen (19) feet above Mean Sea Level on
that portion of Lot 3 directiy to the west of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Excluded from the definition of structure and permitted above
nineteen (i9) feet Mean Sea Level sha1l be pilings supporting
piers and floats, hvac exhaustsandf or intakes, which shall be
ieasonably screened, trees, shrubbery, picnic tables and thingsof a like nature and an easement for construction andmaintenance of a public walk way bicycle path, forconstruction and maintenance of a drainage system and forconstruction and maintenance of a sloped, graded erosionand flood protection barrier." (Emph. added). AmendedComplaintl 12; Tr. Exh. 2.
On September 30, 1986, John C. Lund and Brian R. Corey, as
owners of Lot 3, granted a perpetual view easement (the "Visual
Easement") to the Landing at South Park, Inc., the then owner of the
Landing property and its successors, assigns, and lessees. Said
Visual Easement was recorded in the Fall River Registry in Book
7724, Page 3O6. Amended Complaint fl 13. Tr.Exh. 4.
Said Visual Easement provided that the grant was "the following
perpetual right and easement, in connection with the construction of
140 condominium units on the premises directly to the west of the
premises herein descriLred, which shall run with the premises as
hereinafter described for a view unobstructed by any structure in the
area 79'above Mean Sea Level on the premises being bounded and
described as follows:
A parcel of land in Fall River, Massachusetts, located on the westerlyside of Almond Street, bounded and described as follows, running:
WESTERLY: South 59" = 53'- 55" West to the MountHope Bay; chance running
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 4/18
SOUTHWESTERLY: along the Mount Hope Bay to land now orformerly of the King Phillip Boar Club;chance running
EASTERLY: by land now or formerly of King Phillip Boat
Club 96.44 feet; chance running
NORTHEASTERLY: bv lot 1 and lot 2 on the plan hereinafterdlscribed to the point of teginning as hereinspecified.
Being a portion Lot # 3 on that plan of land entitled: "Division ofLand in Fall River, Massachusetts beionging to Green River ReallyTrust Scale: 1" :8O'Date: July 14, 1986, Prepared by: Site WorkAssociates, Inc. ,257 Bank Street, Fall River, Massachusetts",recorded with the Bristol County Fall River Registry of Deeds in Plan
Book 79, Page 5O as deeded to Grantor by Instrument No. 15885recorded with said Registry of Deeds on October 1, 1986.
Excluded from the definition of the term structure as used inthis Visual Easement and expressly permitted to occupy the area 19
fee above Mean Sea Level on the premises are pilings, supportingpiers and floats, hvac exhausts and/or intakes which are reasonable
screened, trees, shrubbery and picnic tables. Amended Complaint t[
13, Tr. Exh. 13.
In addition to the easement reserved in the prior deeds, on
September 3O, i986 John C. Lund and Brian R. Corey granted the
Landing perpetual twenty (20) foot wide drainage, erosion and flood
protection easement (the "Erosion'Control Easement") located along
the entire common property line between the Landing and the
Marina. Said Easement was recorded in the Fall River Registry in
Book 1724, Page 327. Amended Complaint fl 15, Tr. Exh. 5.
Amended Complaint 1 15.
Said Erosion Control Easement which was granted to the Landing atSouth Park, Inc. its sttccessors, assigns, and lessees:
"The follorving perpetual right and easement, in connectionwith the construction of a 14O condominium units on the
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 5/18
a1-.
premises immediately adjacent to the premises hereindescribed, which shall run with the premises, as hereinafterdescribed, for construction and maintenance of a public walkway and bicycle path, for construction and maintenance ofdrainage systems and for construction and maintenance of a
sloped, graded erosion and flood protection barrier, boundedand described as follows; provided, however, that this right and
easement herein granted is not intended to preclude theGrantor, its successors or assigns, or others so entitled fromusing the premises hereby conveyed so long as such use does
not interfere with the exercise of this right and easement.." Tr.
Exh. 5.
The Marina in excavating the graded sloped coastal bank and inconstructing retaininq walis has violated the Erosion ControlEasement.
The language of the Erosion Control Easement unambiguously
provides the Landing with a twenly (2O) foot wide easement to construct
and maintain a drainage system and a sloped, graded erosion control and
flood protection barrier. While it is probably unnecessary to consider given
the unambiguous language the attendant circumstances support a finding
that the Marina has violated said easement. At the time of the grants in1986 the twenty foot easement area along the boundary line of the Marina
and Landing property consisted of a coastal bank that sloped down toward
the water. At the top of the bank on the Landing property a condominium
complex was to be constructed. The easement area provided a location for
the condominium complex to locate a drainage system to control flow from
its property and to further grade the natural slope to protect the
condominium complex from potential erosion and flood protection from the
water down beiow. Portions of the Landing property near the top of the
bank and adjoining the easement area where in a V zone so the need for
flood and erosion protection barrier rn'as understandable.
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 6/18
The Marina has made the iveak argument that its excavation of the
coastal bank and erection of wal1s was permitted because the Landing's
easement rights were non-exclusive. The easement permits the Marina to
use of the easement area but only "so long as such use does not interfere
with the exercise of this right and easement." Said language is consistent
with common law principle that the owner of a servient estate may use the
land for purposes which are not inconsistent with the easement,
Ampasoomian v. Atamian, 323 Mass. 319, 322 (1948), or which do not
materially interfere with its use. Western Mass, E1ec., Co. v. Sambo's of
Mass., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 815, 818 (1979). Said interference however must
be so slight as to be reasonable in all circumstances. Yaeiian v. Otsrien.
19 Mass. App. Ct. 733,735 (1985). The "right of use arising out of [the]
easement is superior to [the servient estate owner's] interest, and the
[servient estate owner] must avoid activities which are inconsistent with the
[dominant estate owner's] use of the easement." Texon. Inc. v. Hol]zoke
Mach. Co., 8 Mass. App. Ct. 363, 366 (1979t (refusing to allow servient
estate from demolishing its building in which easement holder had right to
maintain steam and electrical conduits).
The excavation of the sloped vegetated bank including the removal of
the entire easement area near building 3 cannot be considered so slight as
to constitute an incidental interference. New York Central Railroad Co. v.
AVer, 239 Mass. 7A $927) (finding a violation of an easement of passage of
light, air, and drainage where entire 10 foot rvide easement not avaiiable
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 7/18
and only a convenient part). As testified at triai the erection of the wall
restricts if not eliminates any use of the easement for drainage.
Similarty, the excavation of significant portions, if not entire portions,
of the twenty foot easement area restricts the use of the easement for
erosion and flood control. By the terms of the easement the Landing was
entitled to the use of the entire easement area. While the Marina may have
been permitted to make some use of the easement area, provided it did not
violate the Visual Easement, it was not permitted to eliminate portions of
the easement area by excavation and erection of walls. New York Centrai
Railroad Co. v. Ayer, supra. The Marina's argument that the erection of
walls may provide flood and erosion protection is hollow where almost the
entire area of the graded sloped bank was eliminated. The intention of the
parties based on the language of the easement and the attendant
circumstance was that the then existing sloped bank would be preserved
and utilized by the Landing for erosion and flood protection and drainage.
Further, the clear intent of the easement provided the Landing, not the
N{arina, with the property right to construct and maintain the sloped
graded barrier. The Marina's argument that the vertical wail it built should
function, if properly engineered, in a similar or comparable manner to
protect the Landing from flood waters is entirely irrelevant. The easement
does not grant the Marina the right to choose the means or design of the
flood control rvithin the easement. The grant of easement conveyed those
rights to the Landing. Only the Landing has the right to make the choice
between the substantive differences betr,veen the improperly engineered
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 8/18
walls, or for that matter any wall, as compared to a vegetated sloped and
graded area.
B. The Marina blr its storaqe of boats and other activities has violatedthe Visual Easement
The grant of the visual, or more appropriately, view easement
provided the Landing with an unobstructed view to the west, i.e ., over
Mount Hope Bay. The utilization of nineteen (19) feet Mean Sea Level as the
benchmark supports this interpretation given that the Landing property is
at or near the nineteen (19) Mean Sea Level elevation. It is understandable
that the developer of the condominiums wanted to preserve for the
residents of the Landing the unobstructed water view. Patterson v. Paui,
448 Mass. 658, 663 (2OO7) (recogntzing common use of an easement to
preserve scenic attributes of properff by preventing the owner of the
servient estate from undertaking activities to impede the view of the
dominant estate).
The apparent contested issue as tJ the view easement is the
definition of the terrn *structure" as contained in the easement. The mere
fact that the parties differ today as to its meaning does not make the
easement ambiguous. See, Ci.tation Ins. Co. v. Gomiz,426 Mass. 379,
381 (1e88).
The term "structure" as contained in the easement should be
construed in light of the limiting or exciuded words in the easement.
Powers v. Freetown - Lakevilie Reqional Sch. Dist. Comm.,392 Mass. 656,
66O, n. B (1984) (courts rely on the doctrine of ejusdem generis to
"ascertain the correct meaning of rvords by timiting general terms in which
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 9/18
follow specific ones to matters similarly to those specified"). The easement
specifically excludes from the definition of structure "pilings, support floats
and piers, hvac exhausts andf or intake which shall be reasonably
screened, trees, shrubbery, picnic tables and things or like nature.,, The
exclusion of these terms necessarily imparts a broad definition of the terrn
structure and certainly not a restrictive meaning encompassing buiidings
or other fixed structures or even man made objects. Certainly, a picnic
table is not a permanently affixed object and trees are not manmade
objects. If the Marina wanted to exciude stored boats or equipment
incidental to its storage operation from the definition of structure it should
have done so. The Marina was aware in 1986 that it planned to operate a
full service Marina which would include boat storage.
Also, supporting a broad interpretation is the definition of structure
as contained in Blacks Law Dictionarv at 1276 (5e ed. 19791which states:
(1) Any construction, or any production or piece of workartificially up or composed of parts joined together in somedefinite manner. That which is built or constructed; an edificeor building of any kind. (2) A combination of materials to forma construction for occupancy, use or ornamentation, whetherinstalled on, above, or below the surface of a parcel of land.
Under this definition a boat would be included in the term
"strllctllre". Boats kept in the water at the Marina would not be violative of
the easement as they are kept in the water and are not on the Marina land
(Lot 3).i The boats stored on land, however, are subject to the restriction of
I The visual easement which provides for a vierv unobstructed provides a restrictron agalnst anystructure on almost the entire portion of the Marina propertl (Lot 3) excepting a smali portion tnthe northerly end near Aimond Street. The visuai easement (Tr. Exh. 4) contains a metes andbounds description of the restricted Marina propert\'.
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 10/18
ll
structures exceeding 19 MSL. Also, the stored boats are particularly
included with the term "structure" as thev are placed on stanchions for
storage and then covered with shrink wrap. "Anything constructed or built"
(dictionary de{inition) is a structure but rvhether a particular thing
constructed is within the meaning of the word as used in a statute,
regulation, or contract depends upon the context." Scott v. Board of
Appeal of Wellesley, 356 Mass. I5g, 161 (1969) (construing a swimming
pool as a structure under local by-law). Asiala v. Fitchburg, 24 Mass. App.
Ct. 13 (Lg87l (an earthen slope required to provide lateral support for a
roadway constitutes a "structure" which may not encroach on land of
another without a license of written easement). Given the context of the
easement and the undisputed intent of the easement to provide the Landing
an unobstructed view of the water it is inconceivable that stored boats that
block views are not considered "structures" within the meaning of the
easement. Where the Marina knew at the time of the execution of the
easement that it intended to store boats on the land it would have excluded
same from the definition if that was the intent.
Other objects such as the boat lift and other equipment must also be
considered as structures.
Based on the pending iitisation. unclean hands and the failure toestablishpreiudice. Defendant has not met its burden to establish laches.
Despite the intentional and knowing violation of the Erosion Control
Easement, the Marina seeks to prevent enforcement based on the equitable
ciefense of laches.
10
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 11/18
In order to assert the equitable defense of laches one must have clean
hands and act in good faith. See, Santaqate v. Tower, 64 Mass. App. Ct.
324,334-335 (2005). The Marina blatantly violated the 2000 preliminary
Injunction issued by this Court in performing construction work within the
20'easement and in erecting vra11s in 2OO2,2006, and most significantly in
2AO8l2OO9. It is difficult to conceive how a party who blatantly violates a
court order can be considered to have clean hands. Additionally, the
Marina bullied the Landing with threats to take the Landing's property if
the Landing objected. The Marina performed excavation of a coastal bank
without required approval from DEp and without obtaining a building
permit from the City of Fall River. The Marina failed to retain a structural
engineer as required by the State Buiiding Code to engineer the walls.
John Lund, President of the Marina is an attorney and was previously
employed as a clerk at the Bristoi Superior Court.
"The equitable defense of laches will [only] bar a party from asserting
a claim if the party so unreasonably delayed in bringing the claim that it
caused some injury or prejudice to the defendant. polaroid corp. v.
Travelers Inden. co. , 414 Mass. 747, Ts9-760 (rggsl. In other words
[i]aches is an unjustified, unreasonable and prejudicial delay in raising a
claim... not mere delay that works as a disadvantage to another. Colon)r of
wellfleet v. Harris, 71 Mass App. ct. s22,531 (2008). Defendants have
the burden of proof to establish all the elements of laches. Three Sons,
Inc.. v. Phoenix Ins., Co.,357 Mass. 27I,278 (l9TOl.
1i
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 12/18
There was no delay in bringing suit in this case given that this case
has been pending since rggg. Also, the same actions performed in
2OO8l2OOg in excavating the coastal bank to erect a wall were complained
of and brought to the Court's attention in 2000 resulting in the issuance of
the preliminary injunction. The doctrine of laches has no applicability and
there can be no delay in bringing the claim where the complained of acts
v/ere performed after suit was filed in L999 and were subject to a court
order prohibiting activities.
While the Landing disputes it unreasonably delayed instituting its
claim, any alleged delay did not prejudice the Marina. The Marina believed
it could do whatever it wanted irrespective of court orders or legal
requirements such as the need to obtain building permits. Without notice .
or asking permission the Marina began the excavation of the coastal bank
within the easement area. The actions of the Marina are analogous to a
criminal stating that if the police had told him robbing banks was a crime
he would not have robbed the bank. The Marina acted with clear
understanding of its wrongful actions. The Marina failed to present any
evidence that it would have acted differently and would not have excavated
the bank and erected walls. The Landing was well aware of the pending
injunction, and the lack of either a wetlands protection or building permit,
and stiil proceeded in direct violation of the court order in performing
construction within the easement area. The Marina cannot possibly
establish any prejudice by alleging delay under these circumstances.
t2
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 13/18
n.
As stated in the ex post facto application for a building permit, it
cost $78,000.00 to perform the work in 2AA8l2AO9. The Marina has stored
boats in the excavated area in 2OOg l2OI0 and 2OlOl2OII. The Marina
failed to meet its burden to establish prejudice given that the storage fees
far exceed the cost of construction and the anticipated costs to remediate
theviolationbyrestoringthebank.See,ry,42Mass.
App. Ct. 1 13, 1 18 (1997) (refusing to find laches where no detrimental
change of position given that the cost expended was outweighed by use of
property)
Contempt
The Marina by its violation of the Preliminary Injunction is in
Contempt of Court and appropriate sanctions should be imposed including
the award of counsel fees and costs should be imposed.
"To find a violation of an injunction sufficient to justifiz an order of
contempt, there must be a clear and unequivocal command and an equally
clear and undoubted disobedience. Demoulas v. Demoulas Super
Markets, Inc.,424 Mass. 501, 565 (1997).
As the trial judge has already determined the Marina has been
adjudged in Contempt of Court based on the Marina's knowing violation of
the Preliminary Injunction dated May 15, 20AO. John Lund, an attorney
and former clerk of the Bristoi Superior Court, at all times was well aware
of the clear and unequivocal command of the Preliminary Injunction and
despite said knowledge willfully violated the court order.
13
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 14/18
Courts may impose sanctions in civil contempt proceedings for either
or both of two purposes: to compensate the complainant for losses
sustained and to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's
order. Labor Relations Commission v. Salem Teachers.Union, Local 1258,
MFT. AFT. AFL-CIO; Salem School Committee,46 Mass.App. Ct.431,435
(1999). Sanctions may be imposed to compensate the Plaintiff for the
actual damages as a reslllt of the violation of the court order. See, Burke v.
Guinelr, 700 F. 2nd,767,77O (1't Cir. 1983). As part of said compensatory
damages plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in seeking enforcement of the court order and
related to the contempt action. Judee Rottenbere Educational Center. Inc.
v. Commission of the Department of Mental Retardation, 424 Mass. 430,
465 (1997); Allen v. School Committee of Boston, 4OO Mass. 123, 195n.1
(19871. To the extent that the consequences of the Marina's contempt do
not lend themselves to compensatory sanction, "the collrt has the inherent
power to impose sanctions for contempt of its orders" Doe v.
Commonwealth , 396 Mass. 421, 422 (1985); Care and Protection
Summons, 437 Mass. 224,237 QOA2). "The purpose of civil contempt
proceedings is remedial" and the formulation of the remedy is within the
judge'sdiscretion. Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. , 424 Mass.t-
at 571.
To that end, the Court has properly entered a further Preliminary
Injunction requiring the removal of any boats within a certain section of the
easement area and prohibiting any future storage in said area. It is
14
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 15/18
requested that said injunction be considered a permanent injunction and
made part of the Court's Contempt Judgment.
As part the Contempt Judgment, the Marina should also be ordered
to remove the driveway entrance at the southerly end of the Landing
property and to remove the concrete block retaining wall constructed in
2008 and 2OO9 and that said removal be done under the auspices and
direction of an engineer retained by the Landing. The Marina should also
be required as part of any Contempt Judgment to restore the coastal bank
to its prior condition, once again under the auspices and direction of the
engineer retained by the Landing. The Marina should be required to pay
any of the costs for said engineer and any of the cost necessary to
remediate the condition and restore the coastal bank. Such a remedy is
necessary and appropriate in this case where the retaining wall that has
been constructed was performed in a faulty manner and will eventually fail
further endangering the health and safety of the residents of the Landing
and the buildings thereon. An order that restores the area to its prior
condition fulfills the remedial purpose of a contempt judgment.
"Unlike the use of the criminal contempt power, the purpose of
sanctions is designed not only to punish, but also to compensate the
aggrieved litigant for the actual loss incurred as the result of the
misconduct of the offending party." Avelino -Wright, 51 Mass. App. Ct.
737, at F.5. (1999). Any monetary reward should be tailored to the
resources wasted or u.nnecessarily expended as a result of the misconduct.
rd.
15
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 16/18
As an additional sanction the Marina should be obligated to pay the
Landing's reasonable attorneys'fees and costs including expert fees
incurred in pursuing this contempt action and engineering costs expended
and to be expended relative to the improper wall construction in
2OAB l2OA9 " it is recognized that the iegal fees and costs incurred in this
contempt action are at least partialiy intertwined with the underlying
complaint seeking a declaration of the parties'rights under the easements.
A reasonabie and accurate approxi.mation of the legal fees incurred would
reqrrire the Marinato pay seventy-five percen t (75%) of all attorneys'fees,
costs, and expenses incurred by the Landing in the combined Contempt
Complaint and underlying Complaint since the institution of the Contempt
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above and arguments previousiy
presented to the Court, the Landing requests that the Court:
1I
Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Marina fromany furtlrer excavation or construction work within thetwenty foot Erosion Control Easement, and ordering theMarina to restore all areas to its previously existingnatural state within the twenty foot easement excavatedsince 2008, with a date certain for commencing suchv'ork and a date for completion:
Declare that the Marina is in violation of the ErosionControl Easement by means of excavating into or
2.
I6
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 17/18
-.
removing portions of the coastai bank and by storing
boats and other equipment within the twenty foot wide
easement area which interfere with the Landing'sexercise of its easements rights;
Declarethat
the Marina is in violation Visual Easement
by means of the storage and or placement of any boats
above 19'MSL on the Marina property and by piacement
of the li'ft station which far exceeds 19'MSL on the
Marina property;
Enter a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining
the Marina and its officers, employees, stock holders,
from interfering with the Landing's exercising of its rights
under the Visual Easement and Rrosion ControlEasement and, specifically, to enjoin same from storing
or placing any boats on the Marina'spropert5z
thatexceeds 19' MSL andlor any other such structureincluding the iift station;
Adjudge the Marina to be in contempt of court based on
its violation of the preliminary injunction dated May 15,
2O0O by the excavation of any of the coastal bank and
erecting of any retaining walls within twenty foot wide
Erosion Control Easement and order the Marina to pay
the Landing's reasonable attorneys'fees and costs"including expert fees, of litigation as presented in the
Affidavits of Counsel filed herewith.
6. Impose a daily monetary penalty against the Marina as a
sanction for any non compliance with the Court's Order.
Respectfully submitted,Landing at South Park Condominium Assn.,
Plaintiff,By their Attorneys,
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. SEIGENBERG
4.
'\n..J t' 4April 29. 2011
Date: Daniel R. Seige_prberg,
2 Commercial StreetSharon, MA 02067(781) 884-8800BBO # 451100
11tt
Esquire
8/3/2019 Post-trial Filing by The Landing
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/post-trial-filing-by-the-landing 18/18
Dedham, Massachusetts 02026
{7811329-s0oe
BBO # 546308