Your case is unique, but you are not alone.
About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.
Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?
How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?
AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Case Information
Filed
2024-08-06
Status
Closed
Type
Mth Complaint Transferred To Land Court Under Chapter 212, 26 A
Docket
72 entries
Disposition
judgment
Parties
Plaintiff
Miguel, Lee|Miguel, Elizett
Defendant
Morin, Kathy|Dorschied, Edward
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- Recorded Copy Modified Judgment - Southern Bristol County Registry of Deeds: Book 15337 , Page 006, filed.
- Count II of the Counterclaim of Lee Miguel and Elizett Miguel, filed.
- Order for Transfer to the Land Court, issued. (Yessayan, J.) Endorsement on Motion to Transfer Count II of the defendants' counterclaim to the Land Court or in the alternative for special appointment of Land Court Justice (#32.0): ALLOWED. After hearing, review and consideration the motion is Allowed, as Count II of the counterclaim concerns claims related to the right, title or interest in registered land over which the Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction.
- Verified Complaint-in-Intervention, filed. (Accepted for filing by Bristol Superior Court on July 11, 2024)
- Answer of Lee and Elizett Miguel to Verified Complaint in Intervention, filed.
- Event Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 09/17/2024 Time: 11:00 AM
- Answer of Lee and Elizabeth Miguel to Verified Complaint in Intervention, filed.
- Case Management Conference Joint Statement, filed.
- Event Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 09/17/2024 11:00 AM Has been: Held via telephone Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Alternative Dispute Resolution: Early Intervention Event held. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D.
- Telephonic case management conference and initial intervention event held. All parties appeared through counsel. The parties whom this Court will be treating as plaintiffs, Lee Miguel and Elizett Miguel, contend that the "defendants," Kathy Morin and Edward Dorschied, have no right to use an easement to which the Miguels' certificate of title refers. Defendants contend they have rights to use the easement for passage and parking. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file by October 11, 2024 a motion for summary judgment, in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. Rule 56 and Land Court Rule 4, concerning their easement claims. The Court ORDERS the Miguels to file by November 15, 2024, any opposition to Defendants' motion and any cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file by November 15, 2024, any opposition to the Miguels' cross-motion for summary judgment, should the Miguels file one. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 09/17/2024 13:13:28
- Assented to Motion of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied for Leave to Supplement Pleadings to add Joint Prayer for Relief, filed and ALLOWED (Vhay, J.). Notice of Docket Entry sent to counsel of record by email.
- Joint Prayer for Relief of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied, filed.
- Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied, filed.
- Statement of Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Kathy Morin and intervenor Edward Dorschied, filed.
- Appendix of Statement of Material Facts 1- 13, filed.
- Appendix of Statement of Material Facts 14- 19, filed.
- The Court CORRECTS its September 17, 2024, order in this matter. Defendant and intervenor's opposition to any cross-motion filed by plaintiff is due November 27, 2024. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 10/15/2024 12:55:46
- Opposition of Lee and Elizett Miguel to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Kathy Morin and Edward Dorschied and Cross Motion of Lee and Elizett Miguel for Summary Judgment Against Kathy Morin and Edward Dorschied, filed.
- Miguel's Response to Statement of Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied and Miguel's Satement of Additional Material Facts in Support of Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment of Morin and Dorschied and Miguel's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- Miguel's Appendix to Statement of Material Facts, filed.
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant and Intervenor's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- Certificate of Service, filed.
- Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied's Reply to Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- The Court has reviewed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court has requested the original registration file (Case No. 27706) from the archives. The Court will schedule a hearing on the parties' cross-motions upon the Court's receipt of the file. The Court does not expect to receive the file before January 2025. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 12/17/2024 15:16:13
- The Court ORDERS the parties to appear by Zoom videoconference on January 30, 2025, at 11:00 AM for a hearing on their cross-motions for summary judgment. A separate notice of videoconference will issue. The Court ADVISES the parties that the Court intends to take judicial notice of the original petition of George H. Taber IV in Land Court Registration Case File No. 27706. Any party who objects to that should inform the Court during the January 30, 2025, hearing. Any party who wishes to review Case File No. 27706 should make arrangements directly with the Sessions Clerk. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 01/14/2025 12:20:51
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Hearing Date: 01/30/2025 Time: 11:00 AM
- Event Resulted: Hearing scheduled on: 01/30/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Hearing held by videoconference on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties appeared through counsel. After hearing arguments from the parties, the Court takes the motions under advisement. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 01/30/2025 15:22:29
- Defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff Kathy Morin and intervenor/counterclaim-plaintiff Edward Dorschied have moved for summary judgment against plaintiffs/counterclaim-defendants Lee and Elizett Miguel on Morin and Dorschied's claims that they enjoy easement rights over the Miguels' property at 3 North Street in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. The Miguels have cross-moved for summary judgment, contending that Morin and Dorschied have no easement rights. The Court GRANTS Morin and Dorschied's motion in part and DENIES it in part. The Court DENIES the Miguels' motion. The case will advance to a pretrial conference on Morin and Dorschied's open claims. The following facts are undisputed. 3 North Street is registered land. The Miguels' certificate of title for that property is Certificate of Title No. 23631, issued by the Bristol Southern Registry District (the "District") on June 2, 2015. The Certificate identifies 3 North Street as being comprised of two parcels. The Certificate describes Parcel One as Lot 44 on Land Court Plan 27706A (Sheet 3) (the "Land Court Plan"). Parcel Two is Lot 45 on the same plan. The Certificate also describes each Parcel by its metes and bounds. Of interest to this case, the Certificate states that Parcel One is bounded southerly and easterly "by land now or formerly of John F. Silva, et al. . . . ." The Certificate also states that Parcel One is bounded easterly and northerly "by lands now or formerly of . . . Louise G. Vincent . . . ." The Certificate concludes its statements about Parcel One thusly: "So much of said Lot 44 above described as is included within the limits of Cook Street, shown on said plan, is subject to rights in favor of land of said Louise G. Vincent and John F. Silva, et al." Ms. Morin lives at 30 Cherry Street in Fairhaven. It's undisputed that 30 Cherry Street is the parcel the Land Court Plan identifies as that of "Louise G. Vincent." Mr. Dorschied lives at 32 Cherry Street in Fairhaven. It's undisputed that 32 Cherry Street is the parcel the Land Court Plan identifies as that of "John F. Silva et al." 30 and 32 Cherry Street bound the north and south sides, respectively, of what the Land Court Plan shows as "Cook St. (Private)"("Cook Street"). The Land Court Plan shows Cook Street as an approximately 40.15-foot-wide, east/west connection between the bulk of Lot 44 and Cherry Street. This Court takes judicial notice that the Land Court proceeding that resulted in the registration of what's now 3 North Street began in 1958 upon the petition of George H. Taber IV. The citation for that proceeding (Morin Appendix Ex. 2) states that in his petition, Taber admitted that Lot 44 "is subject to [a] right-of-way appurtenant to the land of Louis G. Vincent and John F. Silva over that portion of Cook Street, a private way, included in the area description of Lot 44." Taber's registration petition indeed states that Lot 44 is subject to a "[r]ight-of-way appurtenant to land of Louise G. Vincent and land of Joseph A. Robert and John F. Silva over that portion of Cook Street, a private way, included in the above description of Lot 44." A dispute arose in 2021 among the Miguels, Ms. Morin, and Mr. Dorschied concerning their properties. The Bristol Superior Court resolved some of their issues, but those pertaining to Morin and Dorschied's alleged rights over 3 North Street have been transferred to this Court, 3 North Street being registered land. Morin and Dorschied contend they enjoy "a general right of way" over Cook Street, one allowing them "unrestricted access over the entire way on foot or by vehicle and rights to park on and maintain the way to provide safe and convenient access to and from their property." Motion for Summary Judgment, 1 (Oct. 11, 2024). They further contend that the Miguels have fenced off Cook Street, thereby "materially interfer[ing] with the dominant rights of Morin and Dorschied to access, use and maintain the way . . . ." Id. at 2. The Miguels argue Morin and Dorschied have no such rights, but even if they did, the Miguels' fences do not materially interfere with them. The Miguels are correct that in some cases, language such as that found in their Certificate, that their land "is subject to rights of others," is not enough to establish that those claiming to be "others" have the sorts of easement rights Morin and Dorschied claim. But Jackson v. Knott, 418 Mass. 704, 710-713 (1994), holds that where "facts described in [a] certificate of title would prompt a reasonable purchaser to investigate further other certificates of title, documents, or plans in the registration system," the owners of such parcels may be held to whatever encumbrances those records contain. Here, the registration file for the Miguels' own property shows that Mr. Taber acknowledged not just that the Vincent and Silva properties had "rights" over his land, but that they each had an appurtenant "right of way" over a specific area identified as "Cook Street, a private way, included in the above description of Lot 44." Had such language been included in the original certificate of title for 3 North Street, it would constitute an express general easement over 3 North Street. See Marden v. Mallard Decoy Club, Inc., 361 Mass. 105, 108 (1972), quoting Annotation, 3 A.L.R.3d 1256, 1284 ("A right of way, general and without limitation in its terms, is generally held properly subjected to animal and vehicular use, the theory being that such use, being necessary to the reasonable and proper use and enjoyment of the dominant estate, was within the contemplation of the parties."). The Miguels' Certificate thus contains sufficient detail to put them on notice that they acquired 3 North Street subject to easements in favor of Ms. Morin and Mr. Dorschied. See Conway v. Caragliano, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 773, 783-785 (2023) (certificate's mention of rights "in common with others," coupled with information in registration file, provides sufficient notice of easement over registered land). The Court thus must grant Ms. Morin and Mr. Dorschied's motion, and deny the Miguels' cross-motion, on the issue of whether Morin and Dorschied have an easement over Cook Street for passage by foot or vehicle to and from each of their properties to Cherry Street. See Marden, 361 Mass. at 107-108; Conway, 102 Mass. App. Ct. at 787-788 ("right of way" generally includes the right to pass and repass by foot or vehicle). And since they have an easement for those activities, they have the right to maintain Cook Street to the extent necessary to enjoy their access rights. See Mt. Holyoke Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Realty Corp., 298 Mass. 513, 514 (1937) ("The right to make necessary repairs is an incident to the easement."); Conway, 102 Mass. App. Ct at 788 (same). Ms. Morin and Mr. Dorschied haven't proven on summary judgment, however, that their rights include whatever they consider "unrestricted" access to be, over whatever they consider to be the "entire" right of way, or that such rights include the right to park. For example, they share the easement with each other as well as the Miguels. Therefore, none of the parties has "unrestricted" rights in Cook Street. Similarly, Morin and Dorschied haven't proven on summary judgment that Mr. Taber and his 1958 neighbors understood that to provide access to their properties by foot or vehicle from Cook Street, the neighbors needed the use of its entire 40.15-foot width, or that Taber couldn't erect any fences whatsoever in or along Cook Street. (On the latter subject, see Yagjian v. O'Brien, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 735 (1985).) And perhaps most critically, Morin and Dorschied haven't established on summary judgment that the rights Taber acknowledged in 1958 included the right to "park" on Cook Street. See Tehan v. Security Nat'l Bank of Springfield, 340 Mass. 176, 186-187 (1959) (suggesting that an easement for passage includes the right only to stop temporarily in the easement); Conway, 102 Mass. App. Ct. at 786 (noting trial court's conclusion that vehicular access rights in a "shoreway" did not include the right to park in the shoreway). The Court thus ORDERS the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference on March 10, 2025, at 9:00 AM. At that conference, Ms. Morin and Mr. Dorschied will need to identify their admissible evidence that their easement rights are "unrestricted," that they require the entire width of Cook Street to be unimpeded, that they include the right to park more than temporarily in Cook Street, and that those rights prohibit the owners of the servient estate from erecting any fences whatsoever. Morin and Dorschied's showings on these issues will assist the Court in determining the scope of a trial on the parties' remaining issues. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 02/05/2025 12:51:44
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Status Conference Date: 03/10/2025 Time: 09:00 AM
- Event Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 03/10/2025 09:00 AM Has been: Rescheduled Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Status Conference Date: 03/11/2025 Time: 09:00 AM
- Motion of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorsched to continue Status Conference Assented to by the Plaintiffs, filed.
- Event Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 03/11/2025 09:00 AM Has been: Continued For the following reason: Request of all Parties Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Status Conference Date: 04/11/2025 Time: 08:45 AM
- Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied's Status Conference Memorandum, filed.
- Event Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/11/2025 08:45 AM Has been: Held via telephone Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Status conference held by telephone. The parties appeared through counsel. The Court identified four remaining disputed issues in this matter: (1) the scope of Defendants' access rights under their easement; (2) whether those rights include parking within the easement; (3) whether those rights include having the easement be free of fences; and (4) once the Court has determined the easement rights, whether Plaintiffs are interfering with them. The Court intends to hold a case-stated trial on the first through third issues unless the parties identify live witnesses with relevant knowledge of those issues; the Court will hold a trial on the fourth issue (along with a view). The Court ORDERS the parties to appear on May 27, 2025, at 12:00 PM for a pretrial conference by Zoom. A separate notice of conference will issue. The Court additionally ORDERS the parties to file by May 20, 2025, a joint pretrial memorandum that includes a list of all witnesses, a list of agreed and disputed exhibits, and the parties' estimates of the duration of that trial. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 04/11/2025 13:45:51
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Pre-Trial Conference Date: 05/27/2025 Time: 12:00 PM
- Motion of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied for Leave to Amend Answer to add Counterclaim, filed.
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied for Leave to Amend Answer to add Counterclaim for Private Nuisance, filed.
- Request for Hearing, filed.
- The Court has received Ms. Morin and Mr. Dorschied's motion to amend their answer. The Court ORDERS the Miguels to file by May 9, 2025, any opposition to the motion. The Court takes the moving parties' request for a hearing under advisement pending the Miguels' response to the motion to amend. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/01/2025 11:42:13
- Plaintiffs', Lee Miguel and Elizett Miguel, Opposition to Defendant, Kathy Morin and Intervenor, Edward Dorschied's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Add Counterclaim, filed.
- Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Kathy Morin and Edward Dorschied's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Add Counterclaim, filed.
- Certificate of Service, filed.
- The Court has reviewed Ms. Morin and Mr. Dorschied's motion for leave to amend their answer to add a counterclaim and the Miguels' opposition. The Court DENIES the motion, without prejudice to its possible renewal in Bristol Superior Court. In August 2024, the Superior Court directed transfer of Count II of Morin and Dorschied's counterclaim to this Court, as this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claims pleaded in Count II. At the case-management conference in September 2024, the parties informed this Court that no discovery was needed on those claims. After granting in part and denying in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court convened a pretrial conference at which the parties agreed that four (and only four) issues remained for resolution by this Court. Two weeks later, Morin and Dorschied moved to amend their counterclaims to add a "spite fence" claim. Such a claim is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court (to the extent it seeks money damages, it may be beyond this Court's jurisdiction), and it goes beyond the specific title issues raised by Count II and transferred to this Court. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/13/2025 07:55:20
- Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum, filed.
- Event Resulted: Pre-Trial Conference scheduled on: 05/27/2025 12:00 PM Has been: Held via video Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Pretrial videoconference held. The parties appeared through counsel. After hearing from the parties, the Court ORDERS them to hold August 15 and October 1-3, 2025 for trial. A separate order in advance of trial will issue once the Court has confirmed the location of the trial. The Court ORDERS the parties to appear August 12, 2025, at 2:30 PM for a final pretrial conference. A separate notice of conference will issue. SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 05/27/2025 13:12:38
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Telephone Conference Call Date: 08/12/2025 Time: 02:30 PM
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: View Date: 08/15/2025 Time: 08:30 AM
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Trial Date: 08/15/2025 Time: 09:30 AM
- Order in Advance of Trial, issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Gregory Koldys and Richard Bennett) Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D.
- Joint Motion to Enlarge Pre-Trial Filings Deadline from August 5, 2025 to August 7, 2025, filed and ALLOWED (Vhay, J.). Notice of Docket Entry sent to counsel of record by email.
- Parties' Agreed Findings of Fact, filed.
- Morin and Dorschied's Proposed but Disputed Findings of Fact with Miguel's Responses, filed.
- Exhibits D1 - D10, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Pre-Trial Brief, filed.
- Pretrial Brief of Defendant Kathy Morin and Intervenor Edward Dorschied, filed.
- Event Resulted: Telephone Conference Call scheduled on: 08/12/2025 02:30 PM Has been: Held via telephone Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Event Resulted: View scheduled on: 08/15/2025 08:30 AM Has been: Held in person Comments: View taken. (Vhay, J.) Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Trial Ends.: Trial scheduled on: 08/15/2025 09:30 AM Has been: Held - Trial Ends Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Rule 52, Mass. R. Civ. P.) issued. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Gregory Koldys and Richard Bennett) Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D.
- Judgment after trial entered. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Gregory Koldys and Richard Bennett) Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D.
- Joint Motion of the Parties for Clarification of Judgment and Order of the Court, filed.
- Scheduled Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Event: Hearing Date: 10/03/2025 Time: 11:00 AM
- Event Resulted: Hearing scheduled on: 10/03/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Held via telephone Hon. Michael D. Vhay, Presiding
- Telephonic motion hearing held. The parties appeared through counsel. After hearing from the parties, the Court GRANTS the joint motion of the parties for modification of judgment. A separate, modified judgment will issue. The Court REPLACES IN ITS ENTIRETY Finding #13 of its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated September 9, 2025 (the "Decision"), with the following: "By mid-September 2024, Mr. Miguel had completed the installation of the Southern Fence, up to the paved portions of the Existing 30 Cherry Driveway. Had he installed the sections of fence he'd originally contemplated (see Finding #12), the easternmost two sections of the Southern Fence would have prevented vehicles from entering 30 Cherry Street using the Existing 30 Cherry Driveway to reach the position of the vehicle shown in Trial Exhibit 2. As built in accordance with the Superior Court's order (see Finding #12), the Southern Fence nevertheless prevents Ms. Morin from entering the Cook Street Extension at all points along her northern property line and crossing wherever she'd like to enter 32 Cherry Street." The Court also REPLACES IN ITS ENTIRETY the first first paragraph of page 9 of the Decision with the following: "Although they've complied with the Superior Court's order (see Finding #12), one part of the Miguels' fences continues to interfere with Mr. Dorschied's use of the Cook Street Extension. See Finding #14. As for the rest of the fencing, whether it can remain depends on the test set forth in Yagjian v. O'Brien, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 735 (1985): whether the inconvenience they create "is so slight as to be reasonable in all the circumstances." The Court holds that the rest of the Miguels' fencing doesn't presently interfere with Morin or Dorschied's permissible uses of the Cook Street Extension. That fencing thus can remain, for now." SO ORDERED. Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Gregory J Koldys, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Richard M Bennett, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 10/03/2025 12:53:42
- Modified Judgment, entered. (Copies emailed to Attorneys Gregory Koldys and Richard Bennett) Judge: Vhay, Hon. Michael D.
Get Free Case Details
Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.
Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.
Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In
