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.
Cohen v. Hurley
Citations: 480 N.E.2d 658; 20 Mass. App. Ct. 439; 1985 Mass. App. LEXIS 1878
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; July 23, 1985; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
Harold J. Cohen, former president of the Old Silver Beach Village Association, was in conflict with C. Keefe Hurley, a trustee of the Old Silver Beach Trust, regarding landowner responsibilities and conservation issues. After the Falmouth planning board approved a major re-subdivision proposal by the trust on May 18, 1982, Cohen filed an appeal as an "aggrieved" individual due to time constraints for other landowners. The trust intervened and counterclaimed against Cohen for abuse of process. The court ruled in favor of the planning board and the trust, finding Cohen's claims unsubstantiated. Cohen later attempted to appeal the judgment but abandoned it. Subsequently, the trust sought to recover legal fees and costs from Cohen under G.L. c. 231. 6F. The trial judge determined Cohen's claims were frivolous and awarded the trust $20,134.05 from their requested $56,338.07. Cohen appealed this award, while the trust cross-appealed. A single justice modified the award, granting an additional $7,500 for counsel fees and $2,000 for costs related to the appeals. The appellate panel confirmed the trial judge's award and the single justice's modifications, finding adequate support for both decisions. The single justice's authority to impose the additional $2,000 was upheld, as Cohen's appeal was deemed unreasonable in light of the circumstances. The trust is appealing a judgment against it concerning its counterclaim for "abuse of process." The trust sought damages significantly exceeding its litigation costs. The judge, in a "Memorandum of Decision and Order for Judgment," determined that the claim did not substantiate the tort of abuse of process. Citing Beecy v. Pucciarelli, the judge noted that initiating litigation, even if groundless, does not constitute abuse of process without evidence of an ulterior motive. Although Cohen's actions may have appeared groundless, they were directed solely at defeating a subdivision proposal, with no misuse of the legal process for unrelated purposes. The judge emphasized that mere bad intentions do not equate to liability if the legal process is followed correctly. The decision contrasted with cases that found abuse of process involving coercion for collateral advantages. The judge also referenced the policy discouraging abuse of process claims to prevent deterring legitimate litigants from seeking court assistance. The court upheld the trial judge's decisions, affirming the additional awarded amounts and denying relief sought by Cohen under rule 52(b). The rationale for imposing legal fees in frivolous cases does not extend to larger tort recoveries without demonstrated abuse.