Chakrabarti v. Marco S. Marinello Associates, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1979 |
| Citation | 377 Mass. 419,386 N.E.2d 1248 |
| Parties | Anil K. CHAKRABARTI et al. v. MARCO S. MARINELLO ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Cornelius J. Moriarty, II, Holyoke, for defendant.
Richard F. Connon, Holyoke, for plaintiffs.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and KAPLAN, WILKINS, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.
The single issue we decide in this case is whether the Housing Court of the County of Hampden has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action brought under G.L. c. 93A alleging unfair and deceptive practices committed in the sale of a house. Based on our reading of the legislative history of St.1973, c. 591, the act creating the Housing Court of the County of Hampden, we hold that this type of dispute is not within that court's jurisdiction.
It follows that this action must be dismissed. Although the plaintiffs may bring a new action in an appropriate forum, it is regrettable that we must reach this result, since the issues were fully and fairly tried. Nevertheless, the legislative purpose regarding jurisdiction is unequivocally clear, and it mandates the present disposition. See Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum.L.Rev. 527 (1947).
We briefly summarize the facts. In June, 1974, after a series of negotiations, the plaintiffs, Anil and Pranati Chakrabarti, purchased from the defendant, Marco S. Marinello Associates, Inc., a house located at 210 Mountainview Drive in Holyoke. Some years prior to the sale, the house was part of the main clubhouse of a golf club known as Wyckoff Park County Club. Due to an eminent domain taking by the Commonwealth for the purpose of building Interstate Highway I-91, the clubhouse and some adjoining land had been severed from the golf course during the 1960's. Significantly, the clubhouse proper had itself been partially in the right of way claimed by the Commonwealth. As a result, the defendant had detached approximately half of the clubhouse and had moved it to a nearby vacant lot. The property the plaintiffs purchased consisted chiefly of the remainder of the clubhouse.
While viewing the house prior to sale, the plaintiffs noticed water in the dwelling's cellar. They were advised by the defendant, through the latter's agent, that this accumulation could be inexpensively rectified by a small amount of landscaping and grading. Following the conveyance, however, the plaintiffs discovered that the cause of this excess drainage was the fact that the house rested on a foundation now twice the size of that needed. To correct the problem, the plaintiffs were required to hire a contractor to seal the foundation and to perform extensive grading along the back of the house at a cost substantially greater than that originally anticipated.
On January 30, 1976, the plaintiffs commenced this action in the Housing Court of the County of Hampden, seeking damages and claiming that the defendant's misrepresentation of the cost involved to correct the cellar drainage constituted an unfair and deceptive act within the meaning of G.L. c. 93A, § 2, as regulated by par. IV-A and par. XV of the Attorney General's Rules and Regulations, 20 Code Mass.Regs., Part 5, at 25, 39-40. 1 After denying the defendant's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the judge heard the evidence, found for the plaintiffs, and awarded damages of $6,500 and $1,000 attorney's fees. This court transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion.
Because we believe the judge erred in his denial of the defendant's motions to dismiss, we reverse the court's judgment. We are of the opinion that the General Court intended that the jurisdiction of the Housing Court of the County of Hampden should not extend to cases arising under c. 93A. 2
The Housing Court of the County of Hampden was created by the General Court in 1973 and is modeled in large part on the Boston Housing Court. Compare G.L. c. 185A, inserted by St.1971, c. 843, with G.L. c. 185B, inserted by St.1973, c. 591. 3 Section 3 of c. 185B outlines the scope of jurisdiction for the Housing Court of the County of Hampden. That statutory provision declares that "(t)he housing court shall have common law and statutory jurisdiction concurrent with the district courts and superior court of all crimes and of all civil actions, arising within the county" under a number of specifically delineated provisions of the General Laws and "(for) any other general or special law, ordinance, rule or regulation as is concerned with the health, safety or welfare of any occupant of any place used, or intended for use, as a place of human habitation." Focusing on the catchall language quoted above, the plaintiffs contend that c. 93A is a "general law . . . concerned with the health, safety or welfare of (housing) occupant(s)" and thus within the jurisdictional grant of the Housing Court of the County of Hampden. We do not agree.
Although there are writings in support of the plaintiffs' argument, 4 and while c. 93A actions apparently have been heretofore decided in housing court, our interpretation of the statutory language cited above is constrained here by the legislative history surrounding the creation of the Housing Court of the County of Hampden. See St.1973, c. 591. As § 3 of c. 185B was originally drafted, c. 93A was among those statutory provisions over which the Housing Court of the County of Hampden was specifically granted jurisdiction. 5 In its final form, however, mention of c. 93A was omitted. On the floor of the House of Representatives, reference to c. 93A was deleted, 1973 House Journal 2353, and this deletion was, in turn, adopted by the Senate. 1973 Leg.Rec. 459A. Thus, in light of this implied expression of legislative purpose, we must conclude that the General Court desired to prevent the initiation of c. 93A claims in the Housing Court of the County of Hampden. See 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 48.03 (4th ed. 1973).
Because we arrive at our decision in this case by way of specific legislative exclusion, we reserve comment on all other questions of housing court jurisdiction. We indicate no opinion, for example, regarding housing court jurisdiction over matters not involving landlords...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davignon v. Clemmey
...to Chapter 93A was added by Act of Apr. 6, 1979, ch. 72, § 3, 1979 Mass. Acts 38, 38-39 (overruling Chakrabarti v. Marco S. Marinello Assocs., Inc., 377 Mass. 419, 386 N.E.2d 1248 (1979)). 5. The phrase "and of equity" was added by Act of Apr. 6, 1979, ch. 72, § 3, 1979 Mass. Acts 38, 38-39......
-
Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney General
...by the litigants and therefore was not discussed by us. See, e. g., Chakrabarti v. Marco S. Marinello Assocs., --- Mass. ---, --- c, 386 N.E.2d 1248 (1979); J. & J. Enterprises, Inc. v. Martignetti, 369 Mass. 535, 536-537, 341 N.E.2d 645 (1976). See also Linthicum v. Archambault, --- Mass. ......
-
Konstantopoulos v. Town of Whately
...of this jurisdictional grant in equity, the Probate Courts remain courts of limited jurisdiction. Cf. Chakrabarti v. Marco S. Marinello Assocs., Inc., 377 Mass. 419, 386 N.E.2d 1248 (1979). The merger of law and equity under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure did not extend the juri......
-
Levy v. Board of Registration and Discipline in Medicine
...Hous. Auth.,368 Mass. 425, 432, 332 N.E.2d 891 (1975). Compare Chakrabarti v. Marco S. Marinello Assocs., --- Mass. ---, --- - --- B, 386 N.E.2d 1248 (1979) (omission not accompanied by broad grant of authority). We do not think that in the context of the statute as a whole, the omission of......