A broker has a duty to exercise reasonable care in making representations as to a property’s zoning designation.

If a broker’s representation is based on information from the seller questions turns to whether it was reasonable in the circumstances to rely upon such information.

For Example In DeWolfe v. Hingham Ctr., Ltd., 464 Mass. 795 (2013).
A broker made a representation to a buyer that the property the buyer was interested in was zoned for commercial use. The buyer relied upon this information, purchased the property, and later found the property was only zoned for residential use. Was the broker’s representation reasonable in these circumstances?

The court found that this broker’s representation was not reasonable.
The broker was aware that there was no prior business use of the property, the broker could observe that there were residences not businesses adjoining the property on either side and the broker did not look into the zoning for the property.

When the injured person entered the property without paying any fee to the landowner and is taking part in recreational use of the land.

ALM GL ch. 21, § 17C Essentially states:
A landowner who lawfully permits the public to use such land for recreational, conservation, scientific, educational, environmental, ecological, research, religious, or charitable purposes without imposing a charge or fee, shall not be liable for personal injuries or property damage sustained by such members of the public.

Where Defendants were entitled to immunity as a matter of law under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 21, § 17C from tourists’ negligence claims that arose during a tour. The tourists paid neither a direct nor an indirect fee to enter or tour the church and touring is considered to be a recreational activity under the statute.
See. Patterson v. Christ Church,85 Mass. App. Ct. 157(Mass. App. Ct.2014)
 

Even if someone is continually acting maliciously in order to be considered harassment the conduct must be directed at you.

“In order to obtain court protection a plaintiff must demonstrate three or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear intimidation abuse or damage to property.
See. DeMayo v. Quinn, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 115, 116 (2015).

A lien can be dissolved at any time by filing a signed notice stating that the lien is dissolved at the same registry in which the lien was filed.
See. M.G.L. c. 254 Sec. 10.

In order to be eligible to obtain a mechanic’s lien under the party seeking the lien must have a written contract.
See. M.G.L. c. 254

“The crucial element of Noreastco’s claim is the existence of a written contract, for without it, the mechanic’s lien is unenforceable”.
See Gettens Electric Supply Co. v. W.R.C. Properties, Inc., 21 Mass. App. Ct. 658, 660, 489 N.E.2d 217 (1986).

You must have a valid agreement with the owner or authorized agent of the property the lien is to be placed upon. There are three main steps to creating a mechanics lien and the deadlines differ due to the specifics of the labor performed.

1. Notice of contract must be filed with the appropriate registry no later than:
a. 60 days after filing or recording a notice of completion;
b. 90 days after filing or recording of a notice of termination;
c. 90 days after the contractor last performed labor.

The notice of contract can be filed as early as its creation date.
See. M.G.L. c. 254 Sections 2 and 4

2. A sworn statement of account must be filed no later than
a. 90 days after filing or recording a notice of completion;
b. 120 days after filing or recording of a notice of termination;
c. 120 days after the contractor last performed
See. M.G.L. c. 254 Sec. 8

3. Filing of a lawsuit
a. the general contractor must file a civil action in the appropriate county within 90 days of filing the statement of account and record the complaint in the registry in the county in which the land is located. See; M.G.L. c. 254 Sections 5 and 11.

The statute states “a person to whom a debt is due for personal labor performed in the erection, alteration, repair or removal of a building or structure upon land or improvement or alteration to real property, by virtue of an agreement or by consent of the owner of such building or structure or of a person having authority from or rightfully acting for such owner …” See. M.G.L. c. 254 § 1

Essentially anyone who performs a service for the improvement of real property by an agreement with owner of the property can file a mechanics lien. The below analysis focuses on the direct contractor but a subcontractor or a supplier can file a mechanics lien as well.

First, there is a presumption that any individual receiving payment for services is an employee UNLESS the employer establishes otherwise. Thus it is the employer’s burden to argue that the individual is an independent contractor rather than an employee.

This is done in a three-part test:
1. Is the individual is free from control and direction of the employer in connection with the performance of the service?
a. Yes: see question 2.
b. No: this individual is an employee.
2. Is service that is provided by the individual is outside of the usual course of the business of the employer?
a. Yes: see question 3.
b. No: this individual is an employee.
3. Is the individual customarily engaged in an independently established trade occupation profession or business of the same nature that involved the service performed in the case at hand?
a. Yes: this individual is an independent contractor.
b. No: this individual is an employee.

See. Oliveira v. Advanced Delivery Sys. 2010 Mass. Super. 242, 9 (2010).