2017 Mass.App.Div. 189, Henderson v. Dubrow

Citation:2017 Mass.App.Div. 189
Opinion Judge:CRANE, J.
Party Name:CHRIS W. HENDERSON [1] v. NEAL DUBROW
Attorney:Joseph S. Provanzano and Kenneth A. Swartz for plaintiff. Stephen E. Kiley for the defendant.
Judge Panel:Present: Coven, P.J., Crane & Nestor, JJ.
Case Date:December 18, 2017
Court:Massachusetts Appellate Division
 
FREE EXCERPT

2017 Mass.App.Div. 189

CHRIS W. HENDERSON 1

v.

NEAL DUBROW

Massachusetts Appellate Division, District Court Department, Northern District

December 18, 2017

October 20, 2017

Joseph S. Provanzano and Kenneth A. Swartz for plaintiff.

Stephen E. Kiley for the defendant.

Present: Coven, P.J., Crane & Nestor, JJ.

CRANE, J.

This is an appeal from a trial court ruling that the proceeds of a voluntary sale of real estate that was attached are protected from being seized to satisfy any judgment until one year after the sale because of a homestead exemption. We dismiss because the appeal is moot.

Chris W. Henderson ("Henderson") obtained a prejudgment attachment on registered land owned by Neal Dubrow ("Dubrow") in Marblehead. He caused the sheriff to record it on March 18, 2015. There is no dispute that this was Dubrow's primary residence and that it was subject to a declaration of homestead.

On April 1, 2015, the parties entered into an agreement for judgment for Henderson in the amount of $14,855.00. It was filed in the same court where Henderson obtained the attachment. However, Henderson never requested or obtained an execution. Consequently, Henderson never levied on the attachment or took any other action to seize or sell Dubrow's residence to satisfy the judgment.

In October, 2016, Dubrow made a voluntary sale of his residence for a sale price of $505,000.00. After paying off various obligations and creditors other than Henderson,

Page 190

Dubrow realized enough net proceeds to satisfy the judgment in full. Instead of paying Henderson, funds were withheld from the closing and held by an escrow agent in an arrangement that was not disclosed in the record. However, at argument, the parties informed this Division that any funds that were withheld had been delivered to Dubrow. Following argument, counsel for Henderson notified this Division that upon further inquiry, he had determined that no distribution had been made to Dubrow and that the escrow agent still held the funds. Counsel for Henderson also informed this Division that on October 26, 2017, a court approved an attachment on trustee process in the amount of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP