Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Korey v. Sheff
Citations: 327 N.E.2d 896; 3 Mass. App. Ct. 266
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; May 15, 1975; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
In the case of Korey v. Sheff, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts addressed an action for summary process and damages regarding a lease renewal. The Superior Court judge found that the defendants (tenants) had timely exercised their option to renew the lease for an additional five-year term at the specified rental rate. The plaintiffs (landlords) contended that the judge erred in his findings and rulings, and in denying their motions for a favorable finding, a new trial, and to reopen the trial. However, exceptions claimed by the plaintiffs that were not argued in their brief were deemed waived. The plaintiffs argued that the lease required notice of renewal to be sent by registered mail; however, the court interpreted the lease provisions as allowing for other modes of transmission to fulfill the notice requirement. The lease stated that written notice to the lessor would be considered duly given if mailed by registered mail, but it did not exclude other methods. Actual receipt of notice could satisfy the renewal requirement, and posting a letter via ordinary mail could serve as prima facie evidence of receipt. Furthermore, after the defendants' final argument, the judge suggested an off-the-record settlement conference, which the parties agreed to, but settlement efforts failed within the allotted week. Consequently, the judge issued his findings and rulings on February 4, 1974. Plaintiffs alleged violations of their rights to file requests for rulings of law, findings of fact, and to deliver a closing argument, prompting them to file motions to reopen the trial or seek a new trial. Under Superior Court Rule 71 (1954), requests for rulings of law must be submitted before the closing argument, unless special leave is granted for late filing. Although plaintiffs acknowledged that the judge was not obligated to make requested findings of fact, they argued they had a right to submit such requests. However, since they made their request after the judge's findings were issued, the refusal to allow the filing was deemed akin to a discretionary decision rather than a denial of a right. The claim regarding the right to a closing argument was deemed waived as plaintiffs did not assert it during the hearings on the motions. Consequently, judgment favored the defendants. Additional notes indicate that the plaintiffs did not pursue certain arguments and emphasize the importance of timely notice in contractual options.