The City alleged that defendant Gray’s building violated the State Building Code as well as the city’s zoning ordinance because Gray altered the building to create a four-family dwelling. Upon discovery of the four-family dwelling, the building inspector issued a cease and desist order but Gray ignored it. Later, the building inspector discovered a fifth apartment in the building and notified Gray that his building violated the building code and zoning ordinance. When Gray did nothing, the City sued and was successful.
Gray appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for fatal procedural flaws, some of which include the failure to pay various filing fees, several requests to postpone and stay proceedings as well as filing an interlocutory appeal after denial of their request for a stay. The Court noted that even if the appeal had not been dismissed, the issued raised by Gray were never argued in the trial court and were therefore not preserved for appeal review. Moreover, the Court took the time to note that Gray’s argument, that basic principles of equity and fairness should govern, was misplaced and misunderstood. The Court stated that the City relied on Gray’s representations that he would comply with the law and use for building for a two-family house. Further, Gray had remedial opportunities of which he failed to take advantage, therefore the Court dismissed the appeal.
City of Revere v. Gray, 2011 WL 579245 (Mass.App.Div. 2/16 2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://masscases.com/distappslip/CityofReverevThomasGray.pdf
Thanks for the post. I think people really want to make the most out of their property even at the expense of the safety of the residents. This willingness to try and avoid (or undercut) the law is a common practice. The City’s decision to maintain their ground is just and designed to protect the safety of the residents.
Thanks again,
Michael
By: sikoralaw on April 10, 2011
at 12:47 pm