martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Mark E. Swirbalus Document Search Results (16) Show: results per page Sort by:  | T&E Litigation Update: McEachern v. Budnick, Bank of America v. Center for Human Development, Lombardi v. Director of the Office of Medicaid
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 24, 2012, previously published on April 23, 2012 First, in McEachern v. Budnick, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 511 (April 2, 2012), the Appeals Court addressed the question of what constitutes valid "delivery" of a trust amendment to make it effective.
| | T&E Litigation Update: Berkowitz v. Berkowitz
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article March 26, 2012, previously published on March 23, 2012 In Berkowitz v. Berkowitz, Civil Action No. 11-10483-DJC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31487 (D. Mass. March 9, 2012), the U.S. District Court denied a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of an oral trust.
| | T&E Litigation Update: Howes v. Riordan
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article March 6, 2012, previously published on March 5, 2012 In Howes v. Riordan, Case No. 11-P-596, 2012 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 220 (Feb. 28, 2012), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed the allowance of a motion to strike an affidavit of objections.
| | Boyle v. Weiss and Cassell v. Christian Science Board of Directors
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 24, 2012, previously published on February 22, 2012 In Boyle v. Weiss, Case No. SJC-10933, 2012 Mass. LEXIS 33 (Feb. 16, 2012), the Supreme Judicial Court answered the following certified question: "May the holder of a beneficial interest in a trust which holds title to real estate and attendant dwelling in which such beneficiary resides...
| | T&E Litigation Update: Rochalski v. Sklodowski
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 13, 2012, previously published on January 11, 2011 In Rochalski v. Sklodowski, Case No. 10-P-1750, 2012 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12 (Jan. 6, 2012), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed the probate court's judgment voiding certain transactions on grounds of lack of capacity and undue influence.
| | T&E Litigation Update: Purcell v. Landers
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article December 12, 2011, previously published on December 9, 2011 In Purcell v. Landers, Case No. 10-P-1757, 2011 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1251 (Dec. 6, 2011), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the probate court's disposition of a will contest.
| | T&E Litigation Update: Cohen v. Attorney General
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article October 25, 2011, previously published on October 24, 2011 In Cohen v. Attorney General, Case No. 11-11500-NMG, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120336 (D. Mass. Oct. 18, 2011), the federal district court dismissed an action brought by Jillian Cohen, purporting to act in her capacity as "Full Statutory Administratrix" of the estate of the decedent,...
| | T&E Litigation Update: Harootian v. Douvadjian
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article October 11, 2011, previously published on October 6, 2011 In Harootian v. Douvadjian, Case No. 10-P-1798 (Oct. 4, 2011), the Appeals Court addressed the question of whether certain distributions of principal from a trustee to herself, as the lifetime beneficiary of the trust, were in breach of her fiduciary duties to the remainder beneficiaries.
| | T&E Litigation Update: Rose v. Rose
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article October 4, 2011, previously published on September 27, 2011 In Rose v. Rose, Case No. 10-P-1889 (Sept. 26, 2011), the Appeals Court addressed whether a specific bequest of real property was adeemed.
| | T&E Litigation Update: Sherman v. Shub
Mark E. Swirbalus; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article September 1, 2011, previously published on August 29, 2011 In Sherman v. Shub, Case No. SUCV2007-BLS1, 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 146 (Suffolk Super. Ct. June 16, 2011), a Superior Court decision that was issued in June but just recently reported, the Court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their Chapter 93A claim against the defendant...
|
|