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

685 chars

The Bomstein trastees have raised additional issues on appeal. First, they assert that the master violated the judge’s February 28, 1997, order by revisiting his findings associated with the breach of fiduciary claims (Counts XIV to XVI) against Jamila, Paul, and Morris Bomstein as trustees for failing to collect common area charges from the nominee trust. The judge had rejected this objection because “[t]he master was not forbidden to clarify or to supplement his earlier findings if . . .he observed that his earlier findings may have been confusing and possibly been misunderstood by the court.” Gardner v. Peabody, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 168, 173 (1986). We agree and find no error.

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text