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
2024-04-23
Status
Open
Type
E Filed Eqa Equitable Action Involving Any Right, Title Or Interest In Land, G.l. Chapter 185, 1
Docket
42 entries
Parties
Plaintiff
The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association|Annie J. Kemp In Her Capacity As A Unit Owner And Member Of The Board Of Directors Of The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association|Krason, David|Feruza Krason, In Her Capacity As A Unit Owner And Member Of The Board Of Directors Of The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association
Defendant
Ellen Nich, Individually And As In Their Capacity As Trustee Of The 54 Central Street Trust|Christine Galanis, Individually And As In Their Capacity As Trustee Of The 54 Central Street Trust
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- and Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 449859 Date: 04/24/2024
- and Court surcharge Receipt: 449859 Date: 04/24/2024
- ase assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04.
- erified Complaint eFiled.
- niform Counsel Certificate for Civil Cases filed by Plaintiff.
- he case has been assigned to the A Track. Notice sent. Judge: Roberts, Hon. Jennifer S.D. Notice of Judge and Track Assignment was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Maureen B Murphy, Esq. [email protected]
- vent Scheduled Judge: Roberts, Hon. Jennifer S.D. Event: Case Management Conference VIA ZOOM Date: 06/05/2024 Time: 09:30 AM Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney and Attorney Maureen B. Murphy.
- ummons returned to Court with service on Ellen Nich, Individually and as in their capacity as Trustee of the 54 Central Street Trust filed. 05/01/2024: Service in hand.
- ummons returned to Court with service on Christine Galanis, Individually and as in their capacity as Trustee of the 54 Central Street Trust filed. 05/01/2024: Service by leaving at the last and usual place of abode and by mailing 1st class.
- efendants' Answer and Counterclaim, filed.
- ase Management Conference Joint Statement, filed.
- vent Resulted: Case Management Conference scheduled on: 06/05/2024 09:30 AM Has been: Held via video. Attorneys William E. Heney and Maureen B. Murphy appeared for the plaintiffs and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb appeared for the defendants. Attorney Heney reported that he believes mediation would be beneficial. Attorney Loeb reported that he believes a mediator is not necessary and requested time to allow the parties to engage in discussions over the defendants' recent settlement proposal. The court set a discovery deadline of October 1, 2024 and STAYED the case until July 5, 2024 to allow the parties to discuss settlement. The court informed counsel of the impending retirement of the judge to whom this case is assigned and noted that a replacement judge may not be assigned until the fall. Should counsel need assistance prior to the assignment of a new judge, counsel should contact Clerk Hayes to request that Chief Piper reassign the case. Email notice to: Attorney William E. Haney; Attorney Maureen B. Murphy; and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb. Hon. Jennifer S.D. Roberts, Presiding
- otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Maureen B Murphy, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey B Loeb, Esq. [email protected]
- ASE STAYED UNTIL JULY 5, 2024 PER ORDER OF THE COURT. Judge: Roberts, Hon. Jennifer S.D.
- laintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim, filed.
- his case has been REASSIGNED to the Hon. Lauren E. Reznick. Please direct further communication to Sessions Clerk Kathleen Hayes at: [email protected]. (Piper, C.J.) Email notice to: Attorney William E. Haney; Attorney Maureen B. Murphy; and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb. Judge: Piper, Hon. Gordon H. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Maureen B Murphy, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey B Loeb, Esq. [email protected]
- cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Status Conference VIA ZOOM Date: 01/21/2025 Time: 09:00 AM Email notice to: Attorney William E. Haney; Attorney Maureen B. Murphy; and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb.
- vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 01/21/2025 09:00 AM Has been: Continued. For the following reason: Request of Defendant(s) Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
- cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Status Conference VIA ZOOM Date: 01/29/2025 Time: 11:30 AM Email notice to: Attorney William E. Haney; Attorney Maureen B. Murphy; and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb.
- vent Resulted: Status Conference scheduled on: 01/29/2025 11:30 AM Has been: Held via video. Attorneys William E. Heney and Maureen B. Murphy appeared for plaintiffs, and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb appeared for defendants. Attorney Heney reported that depositions have been conducted, the parties have explored settlement options, and that the case appears to be headed towards trial. Attorney Loeb explained that he would like to file a motion for summary judgment because deposition testimony has revealed that plaintiffs cannot establish the 20 years of use required for adverse possession. Attorney Heney acknowledged the evidentiary challenge his clients face and explained that he has been working to locate and secure testimony from prior owners to support his client's claim, but these efforts have thus far been unsuccessful. Attorney Heney requested a 30-day extension to finalize his search for these witnesses. Attorney Loeb objected to any additional extensions of the discovery deadline but insisted that, if the court grants an extension, plaintiffs be required to supplement their discovery responses and notice and take any depositions. After discussion, the court ORDERED plaintiffs to provide supplemental answers to discovery, particularly identifying any additional witnesses by February 12, 2025. Any additional depositions should be completed by February 28, 2025. Additional depositions are limited to those prior owners identified by plaintiffs in their supplemental discovery responses. The court ORDERED the parties to file a joint status report by March 14, 2025. Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney; Attorney Maureen B. Murphy; and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb. Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
- otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Plaintiff: Maureen B Murphy, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey B Loeb, Esq. [email protected]
- ithdrawal of Maureen B Murphy, Esq. for The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association, Annie J. Kemp in her capacity as a Unit Owner and Member of the Board of Directors of The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association, David Krason In his capacity as A Unit Owner and Member of the Board of Directors of The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association, Feruza Krason, in her capacity as a Unit Owner and Member of the Board of Directors of The Other Whitehouse Condominium Association, filed
- efendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- efendants' Statement of Material Facts In Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- efendants' Appendix In Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- emorandum In Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- oint Status Report (indicating that Defendants have filed a summary judgment motion and parties are waiting for Plaintiffs' response to same pursuant to Rule 4 timeline), filed.
- laintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- laintiffs': (1) Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts In Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Statement of Additional Facts In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- laintiffs' Appendix In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- laintiffs' Appendix Part 2, filed.
- fter review of the parties' submissions on defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court has determined a hearing will be necessary. The court will schedule this matter for a hearing on June 4, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. to be held in-person at the courthouse. Notice to follow. Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb. Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey B Loeb, Esq. [email protected]
- cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing ON SITE AT THE COURTHOUSE Date: 06/04/2025 Time: 02:30 PM Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb.
- vent Resulted: Summary Judgment Hearing scheduled on: 06/04/2025 02:30 PM Has been: Continued For the following reason: Request of Defendant(s) Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
- cheduled Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Event: (1) Defendants' Motion to Strike; and (2) Summary Judgment Hearing ON SITE AT THE COURTHOUSE Date: 06/25/2025 Time: 02:30 PM Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb.
- otion to Strike (Portion of Exhibit 2 of Plaintiff's Appendix), filed.
- efendants' Reply In Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- efendants' Supplemental Appendix In Support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed.
- efendants' Motion to Strike has been added to the summary judgment hearing on June 25, 2025 at 2:30 PM on site at the courthouse. Any response to the Motion to Strike is due in 21 days. Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb. Judge: Reznick, Hon. Lauren E. Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey B Loeb, Esq. [email protected]
- laintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike (Dated and Filed May 6, 2025), filed.
- vent Resulted: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing scheduled on: 06/25/2025 02:30 PM Has been: Held in person. Attorney William E. Heney appeared for plaintiffs, and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb appeared for defendants. After hearing, the court DENIED defendants' motion to strike and DENIED defendants' motion for summary judgment. As to defendants' motion to strike paragraphs 26-29 of the Affidavit of Annie J. Kemp, the court found that these paragraphs do not present inadmissible expert opinion. Ms. Kemp, as a lay witness, may offer an opinion if it is based on her perception, helpful to understanding her testimony, and does not rely on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge. Ms. Kemp's affidavit stays within these limits and relies on her direct observations, not on any specialized expertise. Her opinion is within the scope of what a lay witness may offer and will not be accorded any special weight. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment because material facts remain in dispute regarding, at least, the duration of plaintiffs' alleged adverse use of the driveway, and the precise location of vehicular use within the paved driveway, which would define the limits of the area claimed. The summary judgment record includes deposition testimony from the Baileys (predecessor owners of the Kemp condominium unit) and other witnesses, along with Ms. Kemp's affidavit. These materials all require credibility assessments, which the court cannot make at the summary judgment stage. The court agrees that the timing, nature, and extent of plaintiffs' driveway use is their burden to prove. However, on summary judgment, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving plaintiffs. On this record, defendants have not shown that plaintiffs have no reasonable likelihood of proving the necessary elements of their adverse possession and prescriptive easement claims. The court is convinced that this controversy is more suitable for resolution at trial, where the court can freely make inferences, assess credibility, and render findings. The court requested that the parties confer and provide their dates of availability or unavailability in September to Clerk Hayes by email within the next week. The court will then schedule a pre-trial conference in this matter. Email notice to: Attorney William E. Heney and Attorney Jeffrey B. Loeb. Hon. Lauren E. Reznick, Presiding
- otice of Docket Entry: Notice of Docket Entry was generated and sent to: Plaintiff: William E Heney, Esq. [email protected] Defendant: Jeffrey B Loeb, Esq. [email protected]
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
