Mysliwiec v. Zukowski

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Mysliwiec v. Zukowski

36 Mass. App. Dec. 183

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedMarch 21, 1967

Docket#145121

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Mass. App. Dec. 183 (Mysliwiec v. Zukowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mysliwiec v. Zukowski, 36 Mass. App. Dec. 183 (Mass. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Plaintiffs on June 17,1964 sold their home in Worcester to the defendants. The full real property tax levied by the city in the amount of $556.92 was apportioned as of that date. It was not disclosed that the male plaintiff (Stanley) had been granted, in the preceding sixteen or seventeen years, a $2000.00 veteran’s exemption on this tax under G.L. c. 59, § 5, 22c. Two or three months after the sale [184]*184Stanley applied for, and was granted this exemption for the year 1964. A rebate check in the amount of $176.80 was mailed by the city to the Ware Savings Bank, the mortgagee, and the proceeds credited to the escrow account of the defendants. There was a finding for the plaintiff in their action to recover this money.

Leon R. Zitowitz of Worcester for the plaintiff David L. White of Worcester for the defendant

The first two of the defendants’ requests for rulings seem to be directed in vague terms to “due process” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The next two requested the court to rule that the statute creating the right to an exemption provided an unconstitutional “windfall” for Stanley, a “windfall” thei defendants desire to retain. The fifth request we do not understand. None of these requests asked for a ruling on a decisive issue in the case.. Stella v. Curtis, 348 Mass. 458. They could have been properly denied. No harm came to the defendants by their allowance.

The report is to be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

Plaintiffs on June 17,1964 sold their home in Worcester to the defendants. The full real property tax levied by the city in the amount of $556.92 was apportioned as of that date. It was not disclosed that the male plaintiff (Stanley) had been granted, in the preceding sixteen or seventeen years, a $2000.00 veteran’s exemption on this tax under G.L. c. 59, § 5, 22c. Two or three months after the sale [184]*184Stanley applied for, and was granted this exemption for the year 1964. A rebate check in the amount of $176.80 was mailed by the city to the Ware Savings Bank, the mortgagee, and the proceeds credited to the escrow account of the defendants. There was a finding for the plaintiff in their action to recover this money.

Leon R. Zitowitz of Worcester for the plaintiff David L. White of Worcester for the defendant

The first two of the defendants’ requests for rulings seem to be directed in vague terms to “due process” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The next two requested the court to rule that the statute creating the right to an exemption provided an unconstitutional “windfall” for Stanley, a “windfall” thei defendants desire to retain. The fifth request we do not understand. None of these requests asked for a ruling on a decisive issue in the case.. Stella v. Curtis, 348 Mass. 458. They could have been properly denied. No harm came to the defendants by their allowance.

The report is to be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Mass. App. Dec. 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mysliwiec-v-zukowski-massdistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack