Shaikh v. Patel

CourtMassachusetts Land Court
DecidedJune 7, 2021
DocketSBQ 17-41645 08-001
StatusPublished

This text of Shaikh v. Patel (Shaikh v. Patel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Land Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shaikh v. Patel, (Mass. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

SHAIKH vs. PATEL, SBQ 17-41645 08-001

SADIQ SHAIKH, Plaintiff, v. RAKESH N. PATEL, et al., Defendants

SBQ 17-41645 08-001

JUNE 7, 2021

MIDDLESEX, ss.

VHAY, J.

DECISION ON SUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF CITATIONS BY REGISTERED MAIL DURING COVID PANDEMIC

On May 17, 2021, this Court ordered plaintiff Sadiq Shaikh to provide additional proof of his efforts to serve certain "parties in interest" in this case, brought under G.L. c. 185, § 114. This decision explains in greater detail the reasons for that order.

Certificate of Title No. 180357, issued by the Middlesex South Registry District, is in the name of Mr. Shaikh. The Certificate says he's the owner of Lots 1 and 2 on Land Court Plan No. 41645-A (the "Plan"), depicting numerous properties in Woburn, Massachusetts. Lots 1 and 2 are known as 12 Naples Avenue. This Court approved the Plan in 1982.

The Plan shows Lots 1 and 2 straddling Virginia Avenue, a road that's never been built. In August 2017, Mr. Shaikh petitioned this Court under c. 185, § 114, for an order declaring that he owns in fee simple absolute all of Virginia Avenue as it lies between Lots 1 and 2 (the "Paper Street"), and a further declaration that no one else has rights in the Paper Street. He also asked the Court to amend Certificate of Title No. 180357 to reflect those declarations.

In March 2018, the Court appointed an outside title examiner to determine who should receive notice of Mr. Shaikh's petition. Following the examiner's report, in 2019, seventeen defendants, the owners and mortgagees of properties near 12 Naples Avenue (the "Original Defendants"), received notice (a "citation") of this action. After additional proceedings, the Court concluded in December 2019 that many other owners and mortgagees deserved notice. Shaikh and the examiner finished identifying those persons and entities in early December 2020. The Court ordered Shaikh to serve them too with a citation, by registered mail.

Why registered mail? Because the applicable statutes suggest it's a sure means of providing notice. The first such statute is c. 185, § 114, the statute under which Mr. Shaikh filed his petition. It provides that once a certificate of title issues for a property,

[n]o erasure, alteration or amendment shall be made upon the registration book . . . , except by order of the court. A registered owner . . . may apply by motion to the court upon the ground that registered interests of any description . . . have terminated and ceased; or that new interests not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; . . . or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the motion after notice to all parties in interest . . . .

(Emphasis added.) The second statute is G.L. c. 185, § 116. It provides (emphasis added):

All notices required by . . . this chapter by the recorder or any assistant recorder, after original registration, shall be mailed to the person to be notified at the residence and post office address stated in the certificate of title, or in any registered instrument under which he claims an interest, in the office of the recorder or assistant recorder, relating to the parcel of land in question. All notices and citations directed by special order of the court under this chapter, after original registration, may be served in the manner above stated, and the certificate of the recorder shall be conclusive proof of such service; but the court may in any case order different or further service, by publication or otherwise.

One could argue that § 116 allows this Court to provide notice under § 114 to "all parties in interest" merely by first-class mail (or by "different or further service, by publication or otherwise"). But requiring notice by registered mail (or certified mail, see G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 44 (in construing Massachusetts statutes, "unless a contrary intention clearly appears," the term "'Registered mail,' when used with reference to the sending of notice . . . shall include certified mail")) accomplishes two things. First, when § 116 talks of serving "notices and citations directed by special order of the court . . . in the manner above stated," it's describing notices and citations sent by the Recorder or an Assistant Recorder. Traditionally in § 114 cases (known among practitioners as "S cases" or "S petitions"), the Court requires the petitioner to arrange for service of the notice. (In other words, in most S cases, the Court orders "different" service, instead of notice by the Recorder or Assistant Recorder.) Reading § 116 as a whole, it appears that the legislature didn't intend for S petitioners to serve parties in interest merely by first-class mail.

The second thing service by registered mail accomplishes is consistency with another part of G.L. c. 185, its § 39. Section 39 establishes the notice requirements for original land registration cases. It provides (emphases added):

The court shall also, within seven days after publication of [the] notice [described in c. 185, § 38], cause a copy thereof to be sent by the recorder by mailing a registered letter to every person named therein whose address is known. The court shall also cause a duly attested copy of the notice to be posted in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land included in the complaint, by a sheriff or deputy sheriff, fourteen days at least before the return day thereof . . . . If the plaintiff requests to have the line of a public way determined, the court shall order notice to be given by the recorder, by mailing a registered letter to the mayor of the city or to one of the selectmen of the town or towns where the land lies, or, if the way is a highway, to one of the county commissioners of the county or counties where the land lies. If the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a great pond, or if it otherwise appears from the complaint or the proceedings that the commonwealth may have a claim adverse to that of the plaintiff, notice shall be given in the same manner to the attorney general. The court may also cause other or further notice of the complaint to be given. The court shall, so far as it considers it possible, require proof of actual notice to all adjoining owners and to all persons who appear to have any interest in or claim to the land included in the complaint. Notice to such persons by mail shall be by registered letter. The certificate of the recorder that he has served the notice as directed by the court, by publishing or mailing, shall be filed in the case before the return day, and shall be conclusive proof of such service.

Section 39's express and repeated reliance on notice by "registered letter" suggests that the legislature considers registered mail to be a sure means of providing notice under § 116.

Mr. Shaikh thus proceeded in December 2020 to send citations to the new defendants by registered mail, using the U.S. Postal Service ("USPS"). The General Court adopted in 1898 the provisions of c. 185 that this Order discusses. See St. 1898, c. 562, § 108 (today's c.185, § 114); St. 1898, c. 562, § 109 (today's c. 185, § 116); St. 1898, c. 562, § 32 (today's c. 185, § 39). The Court construes c. 185's requirements that parties use registered letters or the mails to refer to delivery by today's USPS. That's because in 1898, the only provider of mail service in the United States was the U.S.

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

Related

Zuckerman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenfield
477 N.E.2d 132 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)
Hull v. Attleboro Savings Bank
596 N.E.2d 358 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1992)
Town of Andover v. State Financial Services, Inc.
736 N.E.2d 837 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2000)
Fifield v. Board of Zoning Appeal
875 N.E.2d 838 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2007)
Police Commissioner v. Robinson
716 N.E.2d 652 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1999)
Roy v. Roy
715 N.E.2d 70 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1999)
Carmel Credit Union v. Bondeson
772 N.E.2d 1089 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shaikh v. Patel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaikh-v-patel-masslandct-2021.