Poremba v. City of Springfield

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before WILKINS; CUTTER
• Citation: 354 Mass. 432,238 N.E.2d 43
• Decision Date: 05 June 1968
• Parties: Edward J. POREMBA, Sr., et al. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD et al. 1

Page 43

238 N.E.2d 43 354 Mass. 432 Edward J. POREMBA, Sr., et al.
v.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD et al. ¹ Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden. Argued May 7, 1968.
Decided June 5, 1968.

[354 Mass. 433]

Page 45

S. Thomas Martinelli, Springfield (Kent B. Smith, Springfield, with him), for plaintiffs.

Troy T. Murray, Assoc. City Sol., for City of Springfield and others.

Before [354 Mass. 432] WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

[354 Mass. 433] CUTTER, Justice.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief concerning a taking of land pursuant to a recorded order of the Springfield city council, aproved by the mayor. The taking was for a proposed 'outer belt highway.' It is alleged that the Porembas' parcel (no. 13) 'is totally unnecessary for and extranous to the construction of' the high way; that parcel no. 12, belonging to Helen C. Riley, and parcel no. 10, belonging to Marjorie Dunning, a plaintiff, are both unnecessary for the construction; and that part of a parcel (no. 9) was unnecessarily taken from James A. and Bernice Bremner, other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further allege (a) that the '(c)ity has taken more land than is necessary for the construction of' the highway; (b) on information and belief, 'that the parcels * * * have been taken not for any public purpose, but for the private benefit of one * * * Albano (a defendant, see fn. 1) * * * owner of a large tract of business zoned land contiguous to the rear of the * * * parcels' taken; and (c) that Albano 'attempted to * * * purchase * * * the properties prior to this taking and * * * indicated to * * * (the then owners) or to some of them, that if they did not sell to him,' the city would take their land.

Various errors or procedural deficiencies are also alleged to exist in connection with the taking. These allegations are summarized below in part 2 of this opinion. The plaintiffs, in addition to declaratory relief, seek to enjoin prosecution of the project.

The demurrer of the city and various of its officers sets out, among other grounds, (1) that the bill did not state any basis for relief in equity or against any named defendant, and (2) that persons not named in the bill as defendants [354 Mass. 434] were 'directly interested in the controversy.' The case is before us on appeals from the interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrer and from the final decree dismissing the bill.

1. The basic allegations of the bill are mere conclusions, viz. (a) that the taking of lots nos. 13, 10, and 12 and of part of lot no. 9 is 'unnecessary for and extraneous to' the highway; (b) that 'more land than is necessary' has been taken; and (c) that the parcels were not 'taken * * * for any public purpose' but for Albano's private benefit. The taking is alleged to have been for a highway, a public purpose.

A wide discretion is entrusted to officials charged with responsibility to determine what land is essential to a public improvement. It requires clear allegations of specific facts to state a case for any relief, or to show that any real controversy exists, based upon abuse of such official discretion. See Despatchers' Cafe, Inc. v. Somerville Housing Authority, 332 Mass. 259, 262--264, 124 N.E.2d 528 (allegations inadequate against demurrer); Moskow v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 349 Mass. 553, 562--564, 210 N.E.2d 699, cert. den. 382 U.S. 983, 86 S.Ct. 558, 15 L.Ed.2d 472 (allegations not sufficient). See also N. Ward Co. v. Street Com'rs of City of Boston, 217 Mass. 381, 386, 104 N.E. 965; McAuliffe & Burke Co. v. Boston Housing Authority, 334 Mass. 28, 30--32, 133 N.E.2d 493; Worcester Knitting Realty Co. v. Worcester Housing Authority, 335 Mass. 19, 22, 138 N.E.2d 356; Luke v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 337 Mass. 304, 308--310, 149 N.E.2d 225; Robie v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 347 Mass. 715, 727, 199 N.E.2d 914; Caleb Pierce, Inc. v.

Page 46

Commonwealth, Mass., ^a 237 N.E.2d 63. See also Nichols, Eminent Domain (Rev. 3d ed.) § 4.11; Antieau, Municipal Corporation Law, § 20.01. There are in the case at bar no allegations of underlying facts (as distinguished from conclusions) sufficient (a) to afford any adequate basis for a declaration of rights, (b) to set out a case for equitable relief against a taking, (c) to show that the taking was not for a public purpose, or (d) to establish that the city's action, by its various officers, was not in good faity and for the public benefit, or that it was for the private benefit of Albano. See Stockus v. Boston Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 507, 511, 24 N.E.2d 333; Chicoine v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 351 Mass. 664, 666, 223 N.E.2d 510. See also Machado v. Board of Public [354 Mass. 435] Works of Arlington, 321 Mass. 101, 104--105, 71 N.E.2d 886; Sellors v. Town of Concord, 329 Mass. 259, 262, 107 N.E.2d 784. The allegations concerning Albano's prior negotiations to purchase some of the affected parcels and his indication that the properties would be taken, if not sold to him, do not contain specific facts sufficient to describe action by public officers or bodies in bad faity. See Stockus v. Boston Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 507, 511, 24 N.E.2d 333. The aspects of the bill thus...