From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Vittands v. Sudduth
Massachusetts Appeals Court
730 N.E.2d 325 (2000)
Judith E. Sudduth (defendant) bought land on Hesperus Avenue through the Hesperus Avenue Realty Trust, of which she was trustee. The land contained a six-lot subdivision that Sudduth planned to develop for residential use. A neighbor, Jekabs P. Vittands (plaintiff), as well as other neighbors (collectively, the neighbors) (plaintiffs), told Sudduth that they did not want one of the lots, lot 4A, to be developed, because they considered it to be a private park where their children played. Vittands told Sudduth that he would prevent construction on the lot at all costs. Indeed, the neighbors were involved in litigation against Sudduth over the nine years before Sudduth secured the permits to develop the subdivision. After learning that the city board of health had granted Sudduth a sewage-disposal permit, the neighbors’ attorney sent letters to the board alleging that because Sudduth’s proposed sewage-disposal system did not comply with regulations and therefore required a variance, the board’s agent did not have the authority to grant the permit. Sudduth entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement of lot 4A with Great Pond Builders. The neighbors trespassed on lot 4A to harass Great Pond Builders and other buyers. The neighbors then filed suit against Sudduth seeking a preliminary injunction against the sewage-system installation as well as a declaratory judgment that the system required variances. Vittands, an environmental engineer, submitted an affidavit to support the allegations. Sudduth filed a counterclaim for abuse of process, among other claims. Great Pond Builders backed out of the purchase because of the ongoing litigation, and Sudduth had to file for involuntary bankruptcy. The court granted summary judgment to Sudduth on the neighbors’ claims, and the court granted the neighbors’ motion to dismiss Sudduth’s counterclaims. Sudduth’s appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The trial court then denied the neighbors’ renewed motion to dismiss and granted the neighbors’ motion for summary judgment, and all parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lenk, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.