"The requirements of rule 56(e) are mandatory." Madsen v. Affidavits "shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Mass.R.Civ.P. That evidence must come from "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and responses to requests for admission under Rule 36, together with. When a court considers the materials accompanying a motion for summary judgment, it may only consider evidence which meets the requirements of Mass. Īs a preliminary matter, the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is ALLOWED. Thereafter, both parties filed reply briefs regarding the Motion to Strike and the filings that followed it. After Plaintiff exposed the deficiencies in both the Original Vanderhoop Affidavit and the Revised Affidavit in its Motion to Strike, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike together with a third document styled Defendant's Amended Revised Affidavit (the "Amended Revised Affidavit"). In response to Defendant's filing of his Revised Affidavit, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Supplemental Evidence (the "Motion to Strike"). Moreover, the Original Vanderhoop Affidavit and the Revised Affidavit were not affidavits at all, since neither was signed and sworn under the penalties of perjury nor were they notarized. The Revised Affidavit attached documents that were not originally included in the summary judgment record. Thereafter, without leave of Court and while the Court still had the Motions under advisement, Defendant filed a document captioned Defendant's Revised Affidavit (the "Revised Affidavit"). After the hearing, the Court closed the summary judgment record and took both of Plaintiff's Motions and Defendant's related oppositions under advisement. 12(b), the Court treated Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss as one for summary judgment, as it included matters outside the pleadings and Defendant had addressed those matters in his written opposition. The parties appeared at the hearing, through counsel, and argued the foregoing Motions. Matthew Vanderhoop (the "Original Vanderhoop Affidavit"). Defendant filed written oppositions to each of Plaintiff's Motions, together with memoranda of law and a document styled Affidavit of Mr. This matter was before the court on Novemwith respect to a Motion for Summary Judgment ("SJ Motion") and a Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims ("Motion to Dismiss"), each filed by the plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as Christiana Trust, not in its Individual Capacity, but solely as Trustee for BCAT 2014-10TT ("Plaintiff") (collectively, the SJ Motion and Motion to Dismiss shall be referred to as the "Motions"). He continues to reside on the Property after his receipt of a 72-hour notice to vacate. The defendant, Matthew Vanderhoop ("Defendant"), is the former owner of the Property. This is a post-foreclosure summary process (eviction) action in which the plaintiff is seeking possession of the premises located at 17 Old South Road, Aquinnah, Massachusetts (the "Property"), together with the fair rental value of the Property from the date of the foreclosure sale. MATTHEW VANDERHOOPġ9-SP-3293CI FebruHousing Court, Southeast Divisionĭonna Salvidio, First Justice MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS AND ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, DOING BUSINESS AS CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR BCAT 2014-10TT v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |