arrow left
arrow right
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
  • McNeil, John Ralph et al vs. Town of Groveland et al Injunction document preview
						
                                

Preview

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1777CV01378 JOHN RALPH MCNEIL, SUSAN MCNEIL, DANIEL DONAHUE and JANE DONAHUE, Plaintiffs, Vv. TOWN GROVELAND, SAM JOSLIN as TOWN OF GROVELAND BUILDING INSPECTOR, JOHN STOKES and GRACE STOKES, Defendants. NN eee AMEMDED ANSWER OF JOHN STOKES AND GRACE STOKES TO COMPLAINT NOW COME John Stokes and Grace Stokes (the “Stokes”), the Defendants, and Answer the corresponding number paragraphs of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The allegations in the Introduction numbered paragraph 1 are introductory and conclusory in nature, and therefore no response is required. PARTIES 2. Admitted 3. Admitted. Eo. 4, Admitted. ~ FORTHE GOUNT OF ESSEX 5. Admitted. 9 0 1° . OCT 63 2017 6. Admitted. Zz.7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. JURISDICTION 10. Admitted. FACTS 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. The Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 15. 16. The Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 16. 17. The Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 17. 18. The Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 18. 7 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. 22. The Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 22.23. The Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 23. 24. Denied. 25. The Stokes admit lumber was delivered, but the Stokes are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in paragraph 25. 26. Admitted. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a:claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE The Plaintiffs claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds. THIRD DEFENSE The Plaintiff has unciean hands in that they were the cause’of any alleged» ~~ damage. FOURTH DEFENSE The Stokes state that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by estoppel and waiver. FIFTH DEFENSE The Plaintiff’s claims are by the Statute of Limitations.SIXTH DEFENSE Any requested relief by the self-caused actions of the Plaintiff would cause damage to the title and zoning protection of the Stokes. SEVENTH DEFENSE The Stokes hereby gives notice that they intend to rely upon such other and further defenses as may come available or apparent during discovery proceedings this case and hereby reserves their right to amend their Answer and assert such defenses. WHEREFORE, the Stokes requests that this Court: (1) Enter judgment dismissing the Complaint against the Stokes; (2) Deny the requested preliminary injunction and permanent injunction; (3) | Award the Stokes reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense of this action; and (4) Grant the Stokes such other relief and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, John Stokes and Grace Stokes. By their attorney, 9 September 30, 2017 Cones Peter J. Caruso (BBO # 076920) Caruso & Caruso, LLP 68 Main Street Andover, MA 01810 Tel: 978.475.2200 Fax: 978.475.1001 pcaruso: @carusoandcaruso.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Peter J. Caruso, attorney for John Stokes and Grace Stokes, hereby certify that on September 30, 2017, a copy of the forgoing Motion and Affidavit of John Stokes were served by e-mail to: James M. Bowers, Esq. jbowers@mbblawoffices.com Rachel L. Bowers, Esq. rjudkins@mbblawoffices Sam Joslin sjoslin@grovelandma.com Peter J. Caruso