Chatham v. Canterbury Ventures LLC et al
Filing
246
Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell: ORDER entered. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR STAY (#238). (Russo, Noreen)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MATTHEW CHATHAM and
ERIN CHATHAM,
Plaintiffs,
No. 1:17-CV-11473-IT
v.
DANIEL J. LEWIS and
CANTERBURY VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION OR STAY (#238)
Previously, this court in May 2019 issued an order (“the 2019
Order”) with respect to the property at the center of this suit,
the residence at Lot 5, Amber Drive, Wrentham, Massachusetts.
Order at D. 169.
See
The court issued the 2019 Order following a
hearing convened upon learning that that the defendants had leased
the property to others for an 18-month term to run until the end
of October 2020.
To address the serious but reasonable concerns
raised by the defendants’ leasing of the property, advance notice
of which was not provided to the plaintiffs or the court, as well
as to provide a degree of stability and certainty and clear
expectations to the parties and tenants going forward, the 2019
Order inter alia directed the defendants not to:
(1) extend the
current lease of the subject property beyond its current 18-month
term; (2) lease, rent or sell the subject property to anyone after
the current lease expires; or (3) market the subject property for
lease, rent or sale to anyone, including the current tenants.
To be sure, the 2019 Order contemplated that the present suit
would resolve over the ensuing 18 months, but that did not happen
for a variety of reasons.
That being said, the 2019 Order also
contemplated that the defendants would take steps to ensure that
the tenants timely vacated the property at the end of the lease,
so that the property would be unencumbered as of November 1, 2020.
But that too, for reasons that are not entirely clear, did not
happen.
Against this backdrop, the defendants moved on August 14,
2020 to vacate or modify the 2019 Order to permit the defendants
to extend the current tenants’ lease by a year, and/or to market
and sell the property.
(D. 215).
The court denied the motion (D.
234) and the defendants (1) appealed the court’s denial to the
presiding
judge,
and
simultaneously
(2)
filed
the
present
emergency motion “for clarification or stay” of this court’s denial
of the motion to vacate or modify the 2019 Order.
the
defendants
ask
specifically
for
In their motion
“clarification
of
their
continuing affirmative obligations under the May 13, 2019 Order.”
(D. 238).
This court in response convened a hearing on the defendants’
motion on October 30, 2020. Now, based on the parties’ submissions
2
and the information adduced at the hearing, the court hereby
modifies its May 13, 2019 Order as follows:
1. The defendants may extend the lease of the current tenants
for a period of six (6) months, from November 1, 2020
through April 30, 2021.
The defendants may not extend the
lease beyond April 30, 2021;
2. In the absence of a subsequent order by this court, or an
agreement by the parties and the court modifying the sixmonth period set forth above, the current tenants are thus
expected to vacate the premises by the end of April 2021.
The
defendants
shall
notify
the
court
if
the
current
tenants vacate the premises before the end of the six-month
period.
3. The defendants shall take all reasonable steps to ensure
that the property is vacant as of May 1, 2021, including,
if necessary, by initiating summary process proceedings.
In that regard, the defendants shall immediately notify
the court if they come to have a basis to believe the
premises may not be vacant as of May 1, 2021, or if legal
process may be necessary to achieve that result;
4. The defendants shall provide the current tenants with a
copy of this Order within seven (7) days of its issuance.
The defendants shall notify the court when they have done
3
so, by notifying this court’s Deputy Clerk by e-mail, with
copy to counsel for the plaintiffs;
5. The defendants shall on March 31, 2021 file a status report
stating the defendants’ understanding as to whether the
property will as anticipated be vacant as of May 1, 2021.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Donald L. Cabell
DONALD L. CABELL, U.S.M.J.
DATED:
November 5, 2020
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?