Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)

Citation: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Parent Document: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2005-12-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356005/murray-v-zullo/ ↗

Full Text

1,484 chars

The case of Bui v. Ma, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 553 (2004) is particularly instructive. In that case, the landlord and owner of the property, Atlantic, sought to evict the tenant Ma, who was operating a Chinese restaurant at the premises. After a trial, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the tenant, holding that she had the right of possession under a written lease. The property was then sold to the plaintiff, Bui, who instituted a second eviction action, this time raising a use restriction in the lease which she claimed was violated by the operation of a restaurant. Bui also contended that a foreclosure which had taken place when her predecessor owned the property operated to terminate the written lease that Ma was relying on. Although neither the foreclosure nor the use restrictions had been raised in the first eviction action, the Appeals Court held that the first action prevented Bui from raising these claims in the second lawsuit on res judicata grounds. Because the first action concerned the validity of the lease as between Ma and the previous landlord, all claims regarding that issue, including the effect of the foreclosure and the use restrictions, were precluded by that earlier litigation. The court reasoned that Atlantic had the “opportunity, ability, and incentive” to raise these same claims in the first action in its effort to terminate Ma’s tenancy. Id. at 561. Bui (as Atlantic’s succeessor in interest) was not entitled to a second bite of the apple.

Other Sections in This Document (28)

Full Text