Complaint Review: Judge DIANA H. HORAN - Worcester Massachusetts
Judge DIANA H. HORAN Arbitrary and Capricious Decision Against the Law Worcester Massachusetts
After review of the Court transcripts, it has been made clear that the Judge has made an arbitrary and capricious decision in dismissing the complaint. She has also violated the SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT RULES Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 Promoting confidence in the Judiciary, Rule 2,2 Impartiality and Fairness, and Rule 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation.
The Judge used the term "RED FLAGS" to dismiss my company's complaint which has NO legal meaning or power to dismiss a complaint and she completely failed to point to any controlling law in dismissing my company's complaint (26 Bond St Management LLC is owned by me and my wife separated at the time. But the house under a divorce settlement is solely owned by me).
A NOTICE TO QUIT was NOT required and was a MOOT issue...The Judge wrongly applied the Hatcher decision to my company's case. The Hatcher decision involved the signing of a legal document in the form of a Summons and complaint by a non-lawyer on behalf of a company NOT a Notice to quit. In other words, illegally "initiating and prosecuting summary process" by a non-lawyer on behalf of a company by signing the Summons and Complaint. Which had NOTHING to do with my company's case. A lawyer drafted, served, filed the Summons and Complaint and appeared in my company's case. In my case, a 30 Day Notice to Quit was signed by the corporate Landlord. It is my understanding that In MA, a Notice to Quit is allowed to be signed by the corporate landlord. This clearly contradicts the Judge's claims that the Hatcher case was violated. And the Judge FAILED to properly review the Hatcher case to determine if it had standing in my case. NEVERTHELESS, the Notice to Quit was a MOOT ISSUE.
Furthermore, the Judge completely ignored precedence and the admitted facts by the Respondents that established a tenancy in sufferance NOT a tenancy at will. There was NO agreement for exclusive possession by the Landlord. There was NO consideration paid by the respondents that would have established a tenancy at will requiring a Notice to Quit which was admitted by the respondents in their ANSWER. It was very clear that the matter was a tenancy at sufferance and NO Notice to Quit was required. And the Respondents were NOT entitled to a counter-claim or affirmative defenses under a tenancy in sufferance. And the 30 day Notice to quit given by me, the President of the Corporate landlord, was only a courtesy extended to the Respondents to give them time to relocate but not required by law. THEREFORE, the Notice to Quit was a MOOT issue once it was established that this was a tenancy at sufferance. BUT the Judge completely ignored the law and disregarded my rights in her attempts to wrongly assist the Respondents by intentionally failing to apply the law in determining that it was a tenancy at sufferance and no Notice to Quit was required.
Belizaire v. Furr 88 Mass.App.Ct. 299 (2015) 36 N.E. 3d that “Such a gratuitous arrangement does not create a tenancy at will ….
There are two essential requirements for creation of such a tenancy: first, a contractual agreement between the landlord and the
tenant, and second, that the tenant exclusively occupy the premises …. As such, the tenancy occupancy of the premises must be
“for a consideration”.
Even IF the Hatcher case had applied, which it clearly did NOT, the Judge under that case could have allowed the case to proceed without dismissing the complaint once she saw an attorney representing my company. The Judge FAILED to weigh the harm that would be done over the benefit. And by doing so UNFAIRLY caused great harm to me being locked out of my own home I purchased and held as my primary residence and had my personal property within the home.
As for the so called letter allowing the Respondents to remain in the house until March 2020, it was NOT a legally binding agreement as NO consideration was paid. Nor was it signed by the corporate landlord. It was merely an acknowledgement that the Respondents were my GUESTS in my home which could be terminated at any time. And since my personal belongings remained in the house when the Respondents illegally locked me out of my home and I had no intention of leaving my home, they had NO exclusive possession of my home.
The Judge abused her authority by failing to adjudicate my case within the boundaries of the law. But instead used the buzzword " RED FLAGS" as if it had some sort of legal authority to dismiss the complaint. In the Judge's decision to dismiss the complaint she stated quote "So there are enough red flags here that I am dismissing the case without prejudice, to file it correctly." She acted in an incompetent, unfair and illegal manner that resulted in severe damage to me in attempting to regain access to my primary residence which I had been illegally forced out of by the Respondents. Which has also caused great financial damage to me in getting back into my own home which I purchased. And in doing so, the Judge has intentionally violated the Code of Judicial Conduct noted above.
I am filing this complaint NOT only on my behalf BUT also on the behalf of other petitioners the Judge has, may have or will harm by her improper conduct. It appears she has been making decisions from the hip and behind the bench without proper review and application of the law to some of the cases before her.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/28/2020 11:06 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/judge-diana-h-horan/worcester-ma-oran-arbitrary-1498148. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.