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
2024-09-25
Status
Closed
Type
E Filed Tre Trespass To Real Estate Involving Title, G.l. Chapter 185, 1(o)
Docket
44 entries
Disposition
judgment of dismissal
Parties
Plaintiff
Lang, Deborah|Lang, John
Defendant
Ranieri, Mario A.|Kido, Melanie E.
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- Case Disposed by Judgment of Dismissal.
- Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 454561 Date: 09/25/2024
- Land Court surcharge Receipt: 454561 Date: 09/25/2024
- Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
- Uniform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
- The case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Judge and Track Assignment was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael Pill, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 10/03/2024 15:38:18
- Event Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Case Management Conference Date: 11/05/2024 Time: 09:00 AM
- Summons returned to Court with service on Melanie E. Kido filed. Served in hand on October 2, 2024.
- Summons returned to Court with service on Mario A. Ranieri filed. Served at their last and usual place of abode on October 2, 2024.
- Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims, filed.
- Issues to be Decided by Jury per Jury Demand of Defendants/Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaim, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Counterclaims, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendants' 6th Counterclaim Under G.L. C. 213a, 6f Because it is Premature and therefore Fails to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted. Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed.
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Demand for Jury Trial and Statement of Jury Issues, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
- Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel Dalton & Finegold, LLP, filed. (Courtesy copy received)
- Joint Case Management Conference Statement, filed.
- Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Jury Demand and Cross Motion Requesting that the Land Court Frame Issues to be Tried by Jury by the Essex County Superior Court, filed.
- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Strike' Demand for Jury Trial and Statement of Jury Issues, filed.
- Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Defendants' Counsel, filed.
- Event Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 11/05/2024 09:00 AM Has been: Held via video Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding November 5, 2024. Case management conference held via videoconference. Early intervention event held. Attorney Michael Pill appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, Deborah and John Lang. Attorney Kaleena Machado appeared on behalf of the defendants, Mario Ranieri and Melanie Kido. This is an action for trespass to real estate, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunction under c. 185, 1(o) concerning the rear boundary of 35 Lincoln Street in Andover. The plaintiffs allege that a fence belonging to defendants Ranieri and Kido is encroaching on their land, which was discovered by a surveyor engaged by the plaintiffs. The defendants have asserted a six-count counterclaim that includes a claim for adverse possession of the disputed land area, a claim in Count VI for attorney's fees under c. 231, 6F, and a request for a jury trial. Before the court were three motions filed by the plaintiffs. The first, a motion to dismiss Count VI of the counterclaim, is based on the grounds that such a claim is premature and can only be brought after a judgment is entered by this court. After argument, the court GRANTED the motion and dismissed Count VI without prejudice. The second motion asks the court to strike the defendants' request for a jury trial. The defendants opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order from the court framing the issues to be tried to a jury in the Essex Superior Court. The court took the motion under advisement. The plaintiffs' third motion is to disqualify Dalton & Finegold, LLP as counsel for the defendants in this action. They argue that the law firm should be disqualified because one of its members acted as the closing attorney when the plaintiffs acquired their property and failed to make a mandatory disclosure that he or she was only acting as lender's counsel at the time of the closing. The plaintiffs contend that the law firm was required by Mass. R. Prof. C. 4.3 to disclose to the plaintiffs that it was not representing them at the closing, only the lender. The plaintiffs argued that this failure mandates that the law firm withdraw from its representation of the defendants in this case and, failing that, the court should enter an order disqualifying it from continuing as defendants' counsel. Counsel for the defendants orally opposed the motion and, subsequent to the case management conference, submitted a written opposition. That written opposition asserted, among other things, that the plaintiffs were represented by their own lawyer in connection with the purchase of their property. Having considered the written and oral arguments of both parties, the plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Dalton & Finegold, LLP is DENIED. The court is not convinced that the actions of the lawyer employed by Dalton & Finegold, LLP who conducted the closing violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 4.3 and, even if he or she did, that such representation justifies the disqualification of a different lawyer at Dalton & Finegold, LLP from representing the defendants under the circumstances of this case. The court set a discovery deadline of March 31, 2025, and scheduled a status conference for April 4, 2025, at 9:00 am via videoconference. The court will decide the jury issue by November 15, 2024. The parties indicated a willingness to engage in mediation. The court will issue an order directing the parties to attend a mediation screening. Both counsel and the parties must attend. (Smith, J.).
- Alternative Dispute Resolution: Early Intervention Event held. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
- Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael Pill, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Kaleena Machado, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Shannon F Slaughter, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Alyssa Marie Holmes, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 11/07/2024 11:37:27
- Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Status Conference Date: 04/04/2025 Time: 09:00 AM
- Emailed report of counsel, received. The parties have agreed to work with REBA/DR for their mediation screening.
- ADR referral to REBA/DR issued. Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T.
- November 15, 2024. The jury issue discussed at the case management conferenced on November 5, 2024, is still under advisement. Additional time will be granted for entering into the Superior Court. (Smith, J.). Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael Pill, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Kaleena Machado, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Shannon F Slaughter, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Alyssa Marie Holmes, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 11/15/2024 10:47:49
- ADR Report of REBA/DR: Parties will attend mandatory mediation screening on November 25, 2024.
- ADR Report of REBA/DR: The parties agreed to mandatory mediation screening at 10 am on Monday, November 25, 2024. At the screening the Plaintiff was eager to mediate and offered the Defendant the choice of neutrals. However, the Defendant was reluctant. The parties agreed to reconvene after the Plaintiff's surveyor performed additional work to determine the precise scope of the claim.
- Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Deborah Lang and John Lang, filed.
- Memorandum of Law in support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Deborah Lang and John Lang, filed.
- Statement of Material Facts in support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Deborah Lang and John Lang, filed.
- Summary Judgment Affidavit of Plaintiff Deborah Lang, filed.
- Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment AND Defendants' Motion to Dismiss AND Defendants' Motion for Award of Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses pursuant to G.L.c. 231 6f, filed.
- Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts, filed.
- Event Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 04/04/2025 09:00 AM Has been: Canceled Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding (Counsel notified via email on 03/10/2025)
- Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Summary Judgment Hearing Date: 04/07/2025 Time: 11:00 AM
- Reply Memorandum in support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Deborah Lang and John Lang, filed. (Courtesy copy received).
- Response by Plaintiffs Lang to Defendants' Summary Judgment Statement of Additional Material Facts, filed.
- Scheduled Judge: Smith, Hon. Kevin T. Event: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Defendants' Motion for Award of Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses pursuant to G.L.c. 231 6f Date: 04/07/2025 Time: 11:00 AM
- ADR Report of REBA/DR: Parties declined to participate in dispute resolution through the Program.
- Event Resulted: Motion scheduled on: 04/07/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Held in person Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding
- Event Resulted: Summary Judgment Hearing scheduled on: 04/07/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Held in person Hon. Kevin T. Smith, Presiding April 7, 2025. Summary Judgment Hearing and Motion Hearing held live at the Land Court in Courtroom 1102. Attorney Michael Pill appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Deborah and John Lang. Attorney Shannon Slaughter appeared on behalf of the Defendants, Mario Ranieri and Melanie Kido. This is an action for trespass to real estate, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunction under c. 185, 1(o) concerning the rear boundary of 35 Lincoln Street in Andover. The Plaintiffs commenced this action based on the premise that a fence belonging to Defendants Ranieri and Kido encroached on their land. Defendants Ranieri and Kido responded with a counterclaim for adverse possession of the land over which the fence was allegedly encroaching. Since the commencement of this action, the Plaintiffs commissioned an instrument survey of their land. That survey, completed in February 2025, established the record boundary between the properties and demonstrated that the Defendants' fence, in fact, does not encroach on the Plaintiffs' property. Before the court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, in which the Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment that (1) the boundary is as shown on the February 11, 2025, survey and that (2) Plaintiffs waive possession or prescriptive easement claims to the land on their side of the fence. The Plaintiffs request that the plan be recorded with the judgment so that it may be cross-referenced in the parties' respective deeds. The Defendants filed an Opposition, requesting that the court deny the Plaintiffs' motion with prejudice because there is no longer a "justiciable controversy." They claim that the respective arguments for prescriptive easement and adverse possession are moot given the results of the survey. Before the court, counsel for the parties argued the motion and opposition. Attorney Pill conceded that there is no longer a boundary dispute, but asked that summary judgment be entered in his clients' favor. Attorney Slaughter requested that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that attorney's fees be awarded for the Plaintiffs' filing of a frivolous lawsuit, arguing that they did not obtain a survey before initiating the suit. Following colloquy, the court DENIED the motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that there is no longer a justiciable controversy. The court also DENIED the Defendants' motion for attorney's fees under G.L. c. 231, 6F. General Laws Chapter 231, 6F, requires a finding that a plaintiff's claims are wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or made in bad faith in order to support an award fees and costs. Here, at the time the Plaintiffs commenced this action, based on information provided to them by a professional land surveyor, they had a good faith basis to believe that the Defendants' fence encroached on their land. Similarly, it appears that the Defendants also believed that their fence encroached onto the Plaintiffs' property as they claimed title to the "disputed area" by adverse possession. As it turns out, they were both wrong. While the court can question whether it was prudent for the parties to resort to litigation without ever having the land in question surveyed, there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the Plaintiffs' claim was frivolous or made in bad faith. It was just an improvidently filed lawsuit. (Smith, J.).
- Notice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: Michael Pill, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Kaleena Machado, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Shannon F Slaughter, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Alyssa Marie Holmes, Esq. [email protected] Sent On: 04/07/2025 15:02:59
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
