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/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
Full Text
719 charsIn Count VI of Murray’s Amended Complaint, she alleges that the Zullos are “benefitting from the improvement and repairs” that Murray made to the Apartment before she was evicted. Because they retain the benefits of these improvements, it is alleged, they have been unjustly enriched. The Zullos counter that, far from being improvements, the changes that Murray made actually decreased the value of the Apartment and caused them to incur costs to return the Apartment to its original condition. They have asserted a counterclaim against Murray in connection with these costs. I conclude that both Count VI and the Counterclaim involve questions of fact which are in dispute, thus making summary judgment inappropriate.