Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)

Citation: Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)
Parent Document: Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578538/berish-v-bornstein/ ↗

Full Text

1,294 chars

On the record before this court, we are able to apply these requirements to only one individual unit owner’s claim. Maurice J. Ferriter purchased his unit on July 11, 1983, and “[s]hortly thereafter he observed water damage in the sheetrock at the entry area of the unit.” He sent a letter to Bomstein on November 30, 1983, complaining of water leaking from a sliding door and the ceiling, as well as water “pouring down on the front of the unit during rain storms.” He filed a complaint in intervention in 1990, asserting, among other claims, breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Ferriter’s claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Ferriter knew that there were substantial problems, with his unit by November 30, 1983, when he wrote his letter to Bomstein. Ferriter filed his complaint as an intervener in 1990, seven years later, after the six-year statute of repose set forth in G. L. c. 260, § 2B, had run. Even if Ferriter’s allegations were found to relate back to the original complaint, which was filed in February, 1987, his claim would be time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. We cannot ascertain the viability of any other unit owner’s claims that may have been “assigned” to the trustees but not fully litigated below. See note 1, supra.

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text