The attleboro mutual liquidating trust
The attleboro mutual liquidating trust
Guide Star is the most complete source of information about U. charities and other nonprofit organizations there is.Search our database of more than 1.8 million IRS-recognized organizations to find a charity to support, benchmark your own nonprofit's performance, research the sector, and more.
They also include life insurance providers, unemployment compensation organizations, pension and retirement funds, fraternal groups, employee associations, and cemeteries.Liquidating trust is a trust designed to be liquidated as soon as possible.For example: a trust into which a decedent’s business is placed to safeguard the business until it can be sold off.The purpose of a liquidating trust is liquidation as soon as the circumstances will permit.The Housing Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of an action by an insured against his insurer, alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of a homeowner's insurance policy by not reimbursing the plaintiff for damages caused by a fire, and also alleging that the defendant had violated G.  CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Hampden County Division of the Housing Court Department on April 22, 1986. Abrashkin, J., and a motion for a new trial was heard by him.
[523-525] Where an insured submitted multiple claims against an insurer to the Housing Court for decision and failed to appeal a judgment entered in favor of the defendant on claims in contract, judgment had become final at least in regard to the contract claims, and the plaintiff was precluded from relitigating those matters, regardless of whether the Housing Court had subject matter jurisdiction of the controversy. Count III alleged that the defendant had violated G. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge submitted special questions to the jury under Mass. 176D by failing to make a reasonable investigation of the plaintiff's claim before denying liability under the policy. Count II was in the nature of an "Account Annexed." On May 27, 1986, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding a third count. The contract counts were combined into one count and were tried before a Housing Court judge and jury. On January 29, 1988, the combined contract count was once again tried to a jury in the Housing Court. Count I alleged that the defendant had violated the terms of the insurance policy by not reimbursing the plaintiff for the damages caused by the fire. The record does not show that there was any ruling expressly made on that issue. On December 1, 1986, the judge allowed the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Even if not raised below, however, it is "the duty of an appellate court to consider a jurisdictional question on its own motion . On April 22, 1986, the plaintiff filed a two-count complaint in the Housing Court Department, Hampden Division. In its answer, the defendant raised, among other things, the lack of jurisdiction of the Housing Court over the subject matter of the plaintiff's complaint. As a result, the defendant's denial of liability under the policy was justified, and judgment was entered for the defendant. In regard to Count III, the judge found that the defendant had violated both G. Although the defendant raised three issues on appeal, it did not include the issue of the jurisdiction of the Housing Court over the subject matter of the plaintiff's action. Page 522 The plaintiff's claim for payment of his fire loss was denied by the defendant on the grounds that the plaintiff had deliberately caused the fire and also had failed to cooperate with the defendant during the postfire investigation as required by the terms of the policy. 176D by failing to make a reasonable investigation of the plaintiff's claim before denying liability under the policy. In their answers to the questions, the jury found that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff had committed arson but also found that the plaintiff had not complied with the terms of the insurance policy by sufficiently cooperating with the defendant during the investigation after the fire. The jury again found that the defendant had failed to prove that the plaintiff had committed arson but found Page 523 that the plaintiff had unreasonably failed to comply with the terms of the insurance policy by his intentional failure to cooperate with the defendant in its investigation of the fire. Later, the judge awarded the plaintiff the sum of ,500 for attorney's fees. A fire in West Springfield on May 4, 1985, caused extensive damage to a three-family dwelling owned by the plaintiff, James B. At the time of the fire, the property was insured under a homeowner's policy issued by the defendant, Attleboro Mutual Fire Insurance Company. 176D were reserved for findings and rulings by the Housing Court judge presiding at the trial. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of 6,660.