The URL can be used to link to this page

12 HAZEL STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION (2) A qG-,ejl cS},ra c Certificate Number: B-15-152 Permit Number: B-15-152 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem This is to Certify that the Multifamily 3+ Building located at Building Type 12 HAZEL STREET in the Cit}.of Salem ...__._ ... _............ ..... Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY c/o for units 1,2, and 3 This Permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating thereto, and expires ........................ ................ pplicable_......,_ __ ....__..... ._ mess sooner suspended or revoked. ..... Not A Expiration Date Issued On: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 W wAwis a w (� DIVI� N Commonwealth of Massachusetts Imo` Citv of 'Salem 120 Washington St 3rd Floor Salem,MA 01970(978)745-9595 x5641 Return cardio Building Division for Certificate of Occupancy - Permit B-15-152 P E'RM IT` TO BUILD FEE PAID:: $1$1,190.00 ' DATE ISSUED: 3/3/2015 • n t. This certifies that SQUIBB WILLIAM P -has permission to erect, alter, or demolish Fa building„_�12_HAZELSTREE-T Map/Lot: 330115-0 as follows: Roofing NEW ROO , SIDING, WINDOWS, MID-INTERIOR FIT I Contractor Name: EDWARD J. P14ELAN DBA: Contractor License No: CS=028073 31312015, Building Official' Date This permit shall be deemed abandoned and.invalld unless the work authorized by this permit is commenced within six months after issuance,The Building'Official may grant one or more extensions not to exceed six months each upon written request. - - t All work authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved applicationand the approved construction documents for which this permit has been granted. ). All construction,alterations and changes of use of any building and strictures shall,be in compliance with the looccal:zoning by-law'trn,d codes. _ This permit shall be displayed in a location dearly visible from access strleet or road and shall be maintained open for public inspection for the entire duration ofthe" work until the completion of the same. 1! 1ft _ The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicable signatures by the Building and Fire Officials�are provided on thisfpermit • H IC#: "Persons contracting with unregistered contractors do not have access to the guaranty'fund"(as set forth in MGL c.142A). Restrictions: Building plans are to be available on site. All Permit Cards are the property of the PROPERTY OWNER. q c,✓` yD Commonwealth of Massachusetts i City of Salem {({` 120 Washington St,3rd Floor Salem,MA 01970(978)745.9595 x5841 «s ,} Return card to Building Division for Certificate of Occupancy us Structure CITY OF SALEM BUILDING PERMIT Excavation PERMIT TO BE POSTED IN THE WINDOW ' � _ - Foo""g INSPECTION RECORD Foundation ' Mechanicail _insulation INSPECTION: BYDATE - Chimney/Smoke Chamber Final Plumbing/Gas rr Rough:Plumbin - �rrf9-3d-is Rough:Ga Final - • V{ Electrical 2 Service , Rough Final a 4 ire Department Preliminary 1� ip in F . Health Department T Preliminary, tr The Charles Hope Companies, LLP 14 Hazel Street Salem MA 01970-4662 December 3,2015 Dear Fatiha Aboulmal and Khalid Kamal Re Retaining wall I am writing inviting you to contact me concerning the retaining wall that abuts each of our properties located on Hazel Street in Salem. Mannie Matius,the general contractor has conveyed your concerns over the time that he has been repairing 12 Hazel Street. He has also forwarded your claim that we are responsible for any disturbances that may have been caused to the wall separating the two properties. I have attempted to contact you on two occasions to understand your claim; once by knocking on your door and the other by Mannie giving you my telephone number.To expedite the resolution to your concerns,please call me at you earliest convenience so that we can resolve any differences that we may have regarding the condition of the wall separating the two houses. Best regards, Alan Hope MA. MBA,as Receiver and Managing Partner for the Charles Hope Companies LLP Cc Michael Lutrzykowski Mannie Matius 370 Great Pond Road North Andover, MA 01845 102 Winthrop Avenue Lawrence, MA 01843 Office: 978-557-0030 • Cell: 978-8154022 Fax: 978-689-4939 E-mail: alan.hope@comcast.net • www.charieshopecompanies.com Manzi Bonanno & Bowers ATTORNEYS AT.LAW tel:978.686.9000 280B Merrimack Street fax:978.794.9628 Methuen,Massachusetts 01844 Real Estate ax:978.687.9154 Hoa.Mary McCauley Manzi(Ret.) /� Vincent C.Manzi,Jr. C Maria Bonanno Of Charles Scott ounsel ierman James M. Bowers Rachel L.Judkins November 25,2014 Paralegal Jennifer M.Boylan Northeast Housing Court Fenton Judicial Center 2 Appleton Way Lawrence,MA 01840 RE: City of Salem v. William P.Squibb et al. Docket No. 14-CV-177 Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed,the Receiver's Motion to Extend Receivership and Receiver's Renewed Motion for Approval of Preliminary Budget. Please file in your usual manner. Please mark these two Motion's and the Receiver's previously filed Motion to Remove Respondent,Old Maritime Colony,LLC from Petition,for December 10,2014 at 9:00am in Salem,MA. Thank you. Very truly yours, eon Rachel L.Judkins Enclosure(s) Cc: William P. Squibb Attorney Vanessa Pisano (via email and first class) City of Salem(via email and first class) Old Maritime Colony,LLC COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS , ESSEX, SS HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DIVISION-SALEM CIVIL ACTION N0. 14-CV-177 CITY OF SALEM Petitioner, V. WILLIAM P.SQUIBB;HSBC BANK, USA, NA,AS TRUSTEE;and OLD COLONY MARITIME,LLC Respondents and THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES,LLP As Receiver MOTION TO EXTEND RECEIVERSHIP Now comes the Receiver,The Charles Hope Companies,LLP. and hereby moves this Court to extend the Receivership an additional 115 days, Nunc Pro Tune to October 21, 2014 now expiring on March 20,2015. In support of this Motion, the undersigned states that the original Order of Appointment for Receivership dated August 22, 2014 was to remain in effect for 60 days. Although the Receiver has performed and continues to perform its duties in accordance with the terms of the Receivership, the undersigned requests that this Motion be allowed to properly reflect the same and to clear up any potential tide issues that may arise in any subsequent sale of the property. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver, Levis Companies, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court: (a) Extend the Receivership an additional 115 days, Nunc Pro Tunc to October 21, 2014 now expiring on March 20,2014; (b) For such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. (12 Hazel) 1 • S Dated:November 25,2014 Respectfully submitted, The Charles Hope Companies,LLP By Its Attorney, Rachel L.Judkins, Esq., Of Counsel Manzi Bonanno&Bowers 280B Merrimack Street Methuen, MA 01844 Tel:978 686 9000 riudkins@mbblawoffices com BBO#681566 (12 Hazel) 2 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION To:VICTORIA CALDEWELL,ESQ.,WILLIAM P.SQUIBB,VANESSA PISANO&C OLD COLONY MARITIME, LLC Please take notice that the undersigned will present for hearing the within Motion to Extend Receivership before the Northeast Housing Court in Salem, MA on December 10, 2014 at 9:00 am,or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Dated: November 25,2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the within Motion to Extend Receivership was this day served upon the listed Respondents by first class mail together with notice of the Place,date and time of hearing thereon. SIGNED under the pains and penalties of perjury. Dated: November 25,2014 c1 v//1� (12 Hazel) 3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DIVISION SALEM CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-177 CITY OF SALEM Petitioner, V. WILLIAM P. SQUIBB;HSBC BANK,USA, NA,AS TRUSTEE;and OLD COLONY MARITIME,LLC Respondents and THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES,LLP As Receiver ORDER After hearing, the Order Appointing Receiver of the property located at 12 Hazel Street, Salem,MA 01970,dated August 22,2014 and recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds on September 3,2014 at Book 33521,Page 131,is hereby extended an additional 115 days, Nunc Pro Tunc,to October 21,2014 now expiring on March 20,2015. Justice (12 Hazel) 4 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX,SS. HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DIVISION CIVIL ACTION No. 14CV177 CITY OF SALEM Petitioner, V. WILLIAM P. SQUIBB, and HSBC BANK,USA, NA AS TRUSTEE FOR FREMONT HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-C, MORTGAGE BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-C Respondent(s) And THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES,LLP As Receiver RECEIVER'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET NOW COMES THE RECEIVER, The Charles Hope Companies LLP, in the above- captioned matter, by and through its Attorney, Rachel L.Judkins, and respectfully renews its motion to this Honorable Court for the approval the Receiver's Preliminary Budget for the renovations required to bring the property located at 12 Hazel Street, Salem, Massachusetts,MA into compliance with applicable State health,safety and building codes. In support of thereof, the Receiver hereby submits an affidavit of Alan Hope, Executive Director of the Charles Hope Companies,LLP. WHEREFORE,the Receiver respectfully requests that this Honorable Court approve the Receiver's Preliminary Budget. Dated: November 25, 2014 Respectfully submitted. THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES LLP, As RECEIVER,By its Attorney, 'C Rachel L.Judkin ,Esq. ,BBO##681566 Manzi Bonanno&t Bowers 280B Merrimack Street Methuen,MA 01844 978.686.9000 ext. 23 2 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION Please take notice that the undersigned will present for hearing the within Motion for Approval of Receiver's Preliminary Budget before the Housing Court Department, Northeast Division holden in Salem,MA on December 10 at 9:OOam,or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Dated: November 25,2014 0 3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 14CV177 CITY OF SALEM Petitioner, V. WILLIAM P.SQUIBB,and HSBC BANK, USA,NA AS TRUSTEE FOR FREMONT HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-C, MORTGAGE BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-C Respondent(s) And THE CHARLES HOPE COMPANIES,LLP As Receiver AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN HOPE I, Alan Hope, Executive Director of The Charles Hope Companies, LLP, of my own personal knowledge,on oath depose and state as follows: I. On August 22,2014,The Charles Hope Companies,LLC,was appointed as Receiver for the property located at 12 Hazel Street,Salem,Massachusetts(the"Property"). 2. On or about October 13, 2014,I submitted a preliminary budget to the Court. 3. On November S,2014,during hearing,the Court denied my motion to approve the preliminary budget as being beyond the scope of the Receivership. HSBC Bank, USA,NA as Trustee filed an Opposition on the day of the hearing. 4. On this date, the Court was provided with color photographs of the property,showing the full extent of the conditions located thereon. 4 5. Following the hearing, the City of Salem Building Commissioner ordered a full inspection of the property. 6. On November 10,2014, the Receiver allowed Larry Ramdin, Health Agent for the City of Salem and the City's Plumbing Inspector into the property for inspection. 7. On November 18, 2014, Larry Ramdin,issued a letter of citation regarding this property, stating that the property be condemned and further citing the full extent of issues with this property. See Exhibit"A." 8. After speaking with the City Solicitor,it is my understanding the City will be moving this Court to expand the scope of the Receivership. 9. In anticipation of this expansion, and in line with the Health Agent and Plumbing Inspectors inspection and citations,I have developed a new preliminary budget. 10. The preliminary budget has increased by$44,303.00 reflecting the following in addition to the original proposed budget: a. Additional debris removal expenses b. Insulation of the home from the outside; C. Installation of new decks,instead of repair; d. Increased cost for new roofing; and e. Removal of asbestos; 11. Due to the increased costs,the contingencies of the original construction budget were reduced by 5%. 12. In light of the recent condemnation and citations from the City of Salem, the proposed preliminary budget is in the amount of$414,016.79. This number includes all contingencies,overhead,profit,loan interest and costs associated with potentially foreclosing on the Receiver's lien,if necessary.A full copy of this preliminary budget is attached hereto. See Exhibit`B." 5 13. To finance this project,I anticipate using personal funds as well as funds received from a local bank,if necessary. 14. I stand prepared to continue serving as Court-Appointed Receiver over the Property and believe that I will be able to successfully address the problems timely and diligently. SIGNED UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THIS 25th DAY OF November,2014. 1 an Hope cu ve Director, The Charles Hope Companies,LLP 6 I City of Salem v.William Squibb et al Docket No.14 CV 1T7 . Exhibit "A" o CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS ' BoARD Or 1IEAUfHi ealth licH j 120 WASHINGTON STREET,4 FLOOR � � r,1?ubub r.oammo,. Tai.(978).741;4800 R-�x(978)745-0343 — KIMBERLEY DRIKOLL Itanidinnsalem.cona LARRY RAMDIN,RS/RFUS,CHO,CA?-FS MAYOR HB,\LTH AGENT November 18, 2014 William Squibb 509 Cabot Street Beverly, MA 01915 Re: 12 Hazel Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Sir or Madam: j At the request of the Building Commissioner and in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 111, Sections 127A and 127 B and 105 CMR:410.000: Chapter II, State Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, an inspection of your residence at 12 Hazel Street was conducted by David Greenbaum, Senior Sanitarian for the Board of Health. . i j Based upon determinations:made during the inspection.and in accordance with I 105 CMR 410.831;the Board of Health determines that the danger to the.life or I health of occupants is so immediate, condemnation is ordered immediately to the entire dwelling and the hearing requirements of 105 CMR 410:8318 and C are waived. All occupants of the apartments:are ordered to vacate the units li immediately for living purposes. If any person refuses to leave the dwelling they may be forcibly removed by the Board of Health or by local police authorities on the request of the Board of Health. Contractors and workers may enter the dwelling between the hours of 8AM and 5PM for the:purpose of making repairs and correcting violations to comply.with 105.CMR 410.000, Chapter II, State Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation The Board of Health cites 105 CMR 410.831 (D) of the State Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of Fitness for.Human Habitation. To Whit:. • There is currently no water service to the building and no working plumbing in the building. • There is no working electrical system. There is a severe mold infestation throughout the entire dwelling. • The roof is leaking,with buckets and puddles of water littering the P floor unit. • There:are no working smoke detectors or carbon monoxide detectors in.the building'. • The entire dwelling has peelinglcollapsing:plasterwalis and ceilings: • The 3°floor bathroom is completely ripped out. • There are broken windows and openings around the building allowing the entrance of pests and animals. d • There is trash, litter and debris all over the dwelling and property. j • The basement is littered with trash and debris. • There is what appears to be disturbed asbestos in the basement. In accordance with the 105 CMR: 410.000: Chapter II, State Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation and Massachusetts General Law cited the ' Board of Health orders condemnation of your property. No dwelling or portion thereof, which has been condemned and placarded as unfit for human habitation, hall again he Used for hi iman hah*tnteon until Written approval Is secured from, and the Board of Health removes such placard. No person shall deface or remove the placard, except the Board of Health shall remove it whenever the defect or defects upon which the condemnation and placard action was based have been eliminated. Should you be aggrieved by this Order, you have the right to request a hearing before the Board of Health. A request for such a hearing must be received in writing in this office of the Board of Health within seven (7)days of receipt of this Order. At said hearing, you will be given the opportunity to be heard and to.present witness and documentary evidence as to why this Order should be modified or withdrawn. You may be represented by an attorney. Please also be informed that you have the right to inspect and obtain copies of all relevant inspection or investigation reports, orders, and other documentary information in the possession of this Board, and that any adverse party has the right to be present at the hearing. Sincerely, La amdin He Ith Agent Cc: Victorla Caldwell,Assistant City Solicitor HSBC Bank,USA,National Association, Old Colony Maritime,LLC Alan Hope,Executive Director,The Charles Hope Companies LLP City of Salem v.William Squibb et al Docket No.14 CV 177 Exhibit "B" REVISED BUDGET USES OF FUNDS-CONSTRUCTION Direct Construction:12 Hazel St,Salem 1 . Who prepared the estimates: Manuel Matias 2 . What was basis for estimates: Quotes from SUBS DV 'rade Item Amount Trade Description 3 . Demolition $12,500 removel trash debris to start work 4 . Concrete 5 . Decks $6,000 6 . Metals 7 Rough Carpentry $8500 reframing of doors and windows 8 . Finish Carpentry $12,500 trim windows doors entries 9 . Front Entrance 10 . Insulation $9,500 from the outside 11 . Baths $8,000 new stalls 12 . Kitchens $13,000 cabinet repairs/replacement 13 . Doors $2,500 14 . Windows/doors $10000 $100 perwindow 15 . Ceilings 16 . Lath&Plaster $9,000 Entire appartment 17 . Drywall $10000 Materials 18 . Tile Work 19 . Accoustical 20 . Wood Flooring 21 . Resilient Flooring $7,500 All Floors 22 . Paint& Decoratin $8,000 both units includes drywall, ceilings 23 . Specialties $19,000 New Roof 24 . Special Equipment 25 . Cabinets 26 . Appliances $2,500 27 . Blinds&Shades 28 . Carpet 29 . Special Construct $19,000 Siding 30 . Elevators 31 . Plumbing& Hot V $18,000 New heating sytem 32 . Heat&Ventilation 33 . Air Conditioning 34 . Electrical $20000 New Electrical 35 . AccessoryBOildin Is 36 . Other/misc - 37 . Subtotal Structu $195,500 38 . Earth Work $1,500 landscape prep 39 . Site Utilities 40 . J .Roads&Walks 41 . Site Improvement - 42 . - Lawns& Planting 43 . Unusual Site Con $0 44 . Subtotal Site W $0 45 . Total Improverne $197,00 46 . General Conditior $3,500 permits, refuse removal utilities inspection/hook ups 47 . Subtotal $200,500 48 . Builders Overheai $15038 8% 49 > Builders Profit $25,063 1 12.50% TOTAL $240,600 50 0 0 REVISED BUDGET USES OF FUNDS-DEVELOPMENT 12 hazel st salem EXHIBIT C Development Budget: Total Comments 1 . Acquisition: Land 2 . Acquisition: Building 3 > Acquisition Subtotal 0 4 . Direct Construction Budget $240,600 5 > Construction Contingency $36,090.0 0.15 of construction 6 . Subtotal: Construction $276,690 because of cement structure General Development Costs: 7 . Architecture&Engineering Work write up 8 . Survey and Permits 2500 9 . Clerk of the Works 0 by developer 10 . Environmental Engineer Phase I 11 . Bond Premium 12 . Legal 7500 13 . Title and Recording in legal 14 . Accounting& Cost Certifica 1000 by developer 15 . Marketing and Sales 20000 0.05 400000 by developer 16 . Real Estate Taxes 1200 17 . Insurance 1200 18 . Relocation 19 . Appraisal 500 20 . Security 21 . Construction Loan Interest $16,601.40 6%on$$238,000 pa. 22 . Inspecting Engineer 23 . Fees to: closing csts 5000 24 . Fees to: 25 . Fees to: 26 . Credit Enhancement Fees 27 . Letter of Credit Fees 28 . Other Financing Fees 29 . Development Consultant 7500 30 . Other: City lien 2357 31 . Other: 32 . Soft Cost Contingency $2,965.59 0.05 of soft costs 33 > Subtotal: Gen. Dev. $68,324.0 34 . Subtotal:Acquis., Const., $345,013.99 and Gen. Dev. 35 > Callback Reserves 0 36 > Developer Overhead $17,250.70 0.05 of dev cost 37 > Developer Fee $51,752.10 0.15 of dev cost 38 . Total Development Cost $414,016.79 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the within Receiver's Renewed Motion for Approval of Receiver's Preliminary Budget was this day served upon Petitioner and Respondents by mailing same,first class postage prepaid,to the following parties,together with notice of the place,date and time of hearing thereon. Petitioner: City of Salem(via email and first class) Respondents: William P. Squibb Attorney Vanessa Pisano (via email and first class) Old Colony Maritime,LLC SIGNED under the pains and penalties of perjury. D Dated:November 25,2014 � t r ELIZABETH M.BENNARD VICTORIAB.CALDVi'ELL CT YRZIC7TOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET iNe - A SSISTANT 07YSCb'.IO77OR SALEM,MA 01970 93 WASHNGTON STREET SALEM,MA 01970 'AL 978.619.5633 CITY OF SALEM TEL:978.619.5634 FAX- 978.744.1279 FAX-978.744.1279 EMAIL:BRENNARD@SALEM.00M KIM.BERLEYL.DRISCOLL,MAYOR EMAIL VOAIDWELL®sALEMcom LEGAL DEPARTMENT 93 WASFUNGTONSTREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 December 1, 2014 Northeast Housing Court Fenton Judicial Center Two Appleton Way Lawrence, MA 01840 RE: City of Salem v William Squibb et al (12 Hazel Street Salem MA 01970) Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the City of Salem, enclosed for filing is the City's Motion to Expand Scope of Order Appointing Receiver.'The City respectfully requests that the petition be marked for hearing for Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Salem. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need further information. Very truly yours, Victoria B. Caldwell Enclosure cc: William P. Squibb Rachel L. Judkins,Esq. Vanessa Pisano, Esq. Old Colony Maritime, LLC , COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DIVISION- SALEM CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-177 CITY OF SALEM Petitioner, V. WILLIAM P. SQUIBB; HSBC BANK,USA, NA,AS TRUSTEE;and OLD COLONY MARITIME,LLC, Respondents CITY'S MOTION TO EXPAND SCOPE OF ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER The City of Salem,acting by and through its Board of Health and City Attorney,moves this Court to expand the scope of its Order Appointing Receiver in the above-captioned matter,with respect to the three-family residential dwelling at 12 Hazel Street,Salem, Massachusetts ("the property")on the basis of the numerous additional State Sanitary Code violations found in a subsequent inspection of the property. Expansion of the scope of the Order is necessary to remedy these code violations which impair the health,safety,and well-being of the abutters and residents of the City and constitute a public nuisance. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On July 28,2014, the City of Salem (the"City")filed a Petition to Enforce State Sanitary Code and Motion to Appoint a Receiver with respect to the property after the City's Sanitarian had found numerous Sanitary Code violations at the property including unsecured windows and doors,severe rodent infestation,large piles of trash and yard waste of which the record owner had been notified and had failed to correct. 2. On the basis of these violations along with the longstanding history of the property as a nuisance to the community,the City sought the appointment of a receiver. 3. At the hearing on the City's Motion,the owner of the property,William P. Squibb, appeared and informed the court that he had no objection to the appointment of a receiver for the property. 4. By Order of this Court dated August 22,2014,The Charles Hope Companies,LLP was appointed Receiver of the property and charged with correcting the above-referenced Sanitary Code violations. 5. On October 13,2014,the Receiver filed a Motion for Approval of Receiver's Preliminary Budget. HSBC Bank,USA, NA as Trustee filed an Opposition to Receiver's Motion. 6. On November 5,2014,after a hearing,the Court denied the Receiver's Motion as beyond the scope of its original Order appointing the Receiver. 7. Subsequent to the hearing on November 5,2014,the City's Building Commissioner, Thomas St. Pierre,ordered a new inspection of the property. 8. On November 18,2014, Larry Ramdin,the Health Agent for the City,issued a letter to the property owner stating that upon inspection of the property, the Board of Health has found the property to be unfit for human habitation pursuant to 105 CMR 410.831 (D)of the State Sanitary Code. (A true and accurate copy of this letter is attached to this Motion as"Exhibit A".) 9. Specifically,the Board of Health found that there is no water service,no working plumbing or electrical systems,a severe mold infestation,a leaking roof with water - 2 - pooling in the third floor unit,no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, and peeling and collapsing plaster walls and ceilings. (Exhibit A) 10. The Board of Health also found that there were broken windows and openings around the building for entrance of pests and animals;trash and debris in and out of the building as well as what appears to be disturbed asbestos in the basement. (Exhibit A) 11. The Board of Health ordered the condemnation of the property. (Exhibit A) 12. Also on November 18,2014,the City's Building Inspector,Thomas St. Pierre,issued a citation for violations of the State Building Code(780 CMR)including failure to maintain proper egress (Chapter 10),failure to maintain smoke detectors (Chapter 9) and failure to maintain the roof(Chapter 15). (A true and accurate copy of this citation is attached to this Motion as"Exhibit B".) RELIEF REQUESTED The Petitioner, City of Salem respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: 1. Pursuant to the Court's general equitable powers and G.1.c.111,§127I,issue a revised Order Appointing Receiver expanding the scope of the original Order to require correction of all Sanitary Code violations including those set forth in City's Exhibit A and all State Building Code violations as set forth in City's Exhibit B; 2. Order that the Property be secured,repaired and brought into conformity with the State Sanitary Code and other applicable codes by the Receiver and made fit for habitation; 3. Approve a preliminary plan for the maintenance and repair of the property by the Receiver that reflects the subsequent Sanitary Code violations;and - 3 - 4. Grant such further relief as this Court deems fit and just. Dated: December 1,2014 CITY OF SALEM, By its Attorney, ViC�Cal well, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 vcaldwell@salem.com Tel: 978-619-5634 BBO#549848 -4 - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION To: William P. Squibb Old Colony Maritime,LLC 509 Cabot Street 6 Kimball Lane,Suite 400 Beverly,MA 01915 Lynnfield,MA 01940 HSBC Bank,USA,National Association, as Trustee Alan Hope,Executive Director Vanessa V. Pisano,Esq. The Charles Hope Companies LLP Hinshaw&t Culbertson LLP Rachel Judkins,Esq. 28 State Street,24t`Floor Manzi Bonanno&Bowers Boston,MA 02109 280B Merrimack Street Methuen,MA 01844 Please take notice that the undersigned will present for hearing the within Motion to Expand the Scope of Order Appointing Receiver before the Northeast Housing Court in Salem, MA on December 10,2014 at 9:00 am,or as soon thereafter /a�s�counsel can be heard. Dated: December 1,2014 e6 l�Weg Victoria B.Cal well CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the within Motion to Expand Scope Of Order Appointing Receiver was this day served upon the Respondents identified above, via Certified Mail together with notice of the place,date and time of hearing thereon. SIGNED under the pains and penalties of perjury. Dated: December 1,2014 'Vs:s: � 0, Victoria B. Caldwell - 5 - City of Salem v. William Squibb et al Northeast Housing Court CA No.14-CV-177 City's Motion to Expand Scope Exhibit A CHUSETTS CITY 017 SAL EM,MASSA BOARD OP HEALTH 1 120 WASHING' ON STREET,4111 FLUOR P„bliCHe lth 1 TEL,(978)7414800 Fax(978)745-0343 _ KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Ika'milin snlclu.com MAYOR I,dJtRYRAMDIN,RS/REINS,CHO,CP. T-S H6AL'rn AGIINT November 18,2014 :• •" William Squibb 609 Cabot Street :Bevedy, tiNC01815" " Re: 12 Hazel Street " Salem, MA 01970 Dear'SIt or Madam: At the request of the BuildingCommissloner and in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 111, Sections 1.27A and 127 B and 105 CMR:410.000: Chapter ll,State Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation,An inspection of your residence at 12 Hazel Street was conducted by David Greenbaum, Senior Sanitarian for the Board of Health. . i )used upon determinations.made during the Inspection.and In accordance with �. 105 CMR 410.831;the Boaid"of Healtli determines that.the danger to the.lsfe or- I beelth of occupants Is so immedlate,condemnation is ordered immediately to the entire dwelling and the.hearing requirementa of 106 CMR 410:8518 and C are waived. All occapantisof the apartments are ordered to vacate the units I Immediately for living purposes. If any parson refuses to leave the dwelling they, .' '" i may be forcibly removed by th9 Board.of Healtfi`or"by local police authorities on" the request of the Board of Health.Contractors and.workers may enter the dwelling between the hours of IIAM and SPM for the:purpose of making repairs. and correcting violations to comply.with 105 CMR 410.000, Chapter ll, State Sanitary Code,Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation The Board of Health oftes 105 CMR 410.631 (D)of the State'Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of-Fitness for.Humen Habitation. To Whit'... • Thera Is currently no water service to the building end no working plumtung"in the"building. • There Is no working electrical system. • There is a severe mold infestation throughout the entire dwelling. • The roof Is leaklrig.with buckets and•puddles"of water littering the 3f0 flooP lank. There:are no working smoke detectors or carbon monoxide detectors in the building. • The entire dwelling has peeling/collapsing:plaster,walls and ceilings. • The 3'0 floor bathroom Is completely ripped out. " • There are broken windows and openings around the building allowing the entrance of pests and animals. • There is trash, litter and debris all over the dwelling and property. - • The basement Is.littered with trash and debris. • There is what appears to be disturbed asbestos in the basement. In accordance with the 105 CMR:410.000: Chapter II, State Sanitary Code, Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation and Massachusetts General Law cited the Board of Health orders condemnation of your property. No dwelling or portion thereof,which has been condemned and placarded as unitt for h,M---i.ablitation, shall again ��1 111111!1:11:1 filir 11!111;1:11 rillillvdtlen Approtal Is secured from,and the Board of Health removes such placard. No person shall deface or remove the placard, except the Board of Health shall remove it whenever the defect or defects upon which the condemnation and placard action was based have been eliminated. Should you be aggrieved by this Order, you have the right to request a hearing before the Board of Health. A request for such a hearing must be received In writing in this office of the Board of Health within seven(7)days of receipt of this Order. At said hearing,you will be given the opportunity to be heard and to present witness and documentary evidence as to why this Order should be modified or withdrawn. You may be represented by an attorney. Please also be Informed that you have the right to Inspect and obtain copies of all relevant Inspection or investigation reports, orders,and other documentary Information in the possession of this Board, and that any adverse party has the right to be present at the hearing. Sincerely, La a din He Ith Agent Co: VM042 Caklxre0.Aseletant City Soltcnor HSBC Bank,USA,NeUonal Aseoclallon, Ob Colony MarMme,LLC Alen Hope,Recuffm Director,The Charles Hope Companies LLP p . City of Salem v. William Squibb et of Northeast Housing Court CA No.14-CV-177 City's Motion to Expand Scope Exhibit B C#TY`OF kALEM n nME cowmoc ra. "•=IM ME OF OTFENOE - NoenEse SmTE LP I hereby ecknowledge:recOipt of the foregoing citation - <X Date: - PeUnableto.obtain signature df offender. I�.Date Melted 1 �� II ngAdlmNsemams,Natives on City Proopelay. [I'll"al Signs. b(mob9onotSb[e Building Code _ - $00439 and447 500121 f 1 Rem oval.olsUown Conditions I.1Molation of BOCANaL Fire Prev Code... SCO 1235 . . . - SCO2D-111 - •A.I f 1I�ping df Trailere,Comm aM Rev Vehicles,etc. - �tU 24-21:1 1 11movalpf.Snpw4from Sidewalks- r1 C. I7nnIng'brdiit>(nce 3 lf,An •�•� -` 7 Q C 7�'SR' �V 41ohor S�akr e <lfrcfgi �1 04r- yP SPc /S -rdJC Signature oikNorcing Person Depedmam'-. ' Arawntof Fine: [ 1 Warning [ 1$25.00 - i [.1J100.0o _. [ 1$200.00 I]'$300.00 [.l Other .5471 You hale thefollowing alternatives in this matter within 21 days.of the date of this notice: . J l choose to pay the fine within 21 days of the date of this notim: Enclose a check or money order payable tothe:I*of Salem and return R In this.envelope or by delivering In hand to the CIH Clerk's Office,City Hall,93 Washington Street.Salem, 'MA 01970.If delivering in hand,please note the boom of City H811 operation:Monday _ MroughWeMesday from 8:00 a.m.to 40 p.m.,Thursday from 5:00 a.m.to 7i0g p.m.and - Friday from 8.00 a.m.to l2:DO P.m: I J choose Is contest this molter within 21 days of the date of this notice and request in wrmnp a noncriminal hearing - - Enclose a copy of this cdation and mall d to the Clark Magistrate,Salem District Court,65 Washington Street Salem,MA 01976.The Court wig schedule abaring. i FAILURE TO OBEY THIS NOTICE WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE WILL RESULT'.IN THE CITY OF.SALEM APPLYING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF ANY CM OF SALEM PERMITS OR LICENSES YOU APPLY FOR OR THAT YOU HAVE PEEN GRANTED, INCLUDING BUILDING PERMITS i City of Salem,City Clerk's Office,93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 (978)745-9595,ext 5610. - :SEE OTHERSIDE FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS ENCLOSE PAYMENT IN THIS ENVELOPE,PEEL AND SEAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX,SS HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DIVISION-SALEM CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-177 CITY OF SALEM Petitioner, V. WILLIAM P.SQUIBB;HSBC BANK,USA, NA,AS TRUSTEE;and OLD COLONY MARITIME,LLC, Respondents CITY'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXPAND SCOPE OF ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER The City of Salem,acting by and through its Board of Health and City Attorney,hereby submits this memorandum in support of its motion to expand the scope of its Order Appointing Receiver in the above-captioned matter,with respect to the three-family residential dwelling at 12 Hazel Street,Salem,Massachusetts (the"property")on the basis of the numerous additional State Sanitary Code violations found in a subsequent inspection of the property. Expansion of the scope of the Order is necessary to remedy these code violations which impair the health, safety,and well-being of the abutters and residents of the City and constitute a public nuisance. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND For approximately 20 years,the property has been the source of an escalating series of complaints,sanitary and building code violations as well as court proceedings. The property has been repeatedly cited for code violations,resulting in a court order in 2003 and a criminal complaint in 2011. (Affidavit of Thomas St. Pierre/"bit B,Motion to Appoint Receiver)In 2006,William P. Squibb and Lorelei Azarian (the owners)executed a promissory note in the original amount of$308,750 and granted a mortgage in favor of Fremont Investment Sr Loan relating to the property. In 2011,the owners defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage. In 2012,MFRS,as nominee for Fremont,assigned the mortgage to HSBC Bank as Trustee (HSBC). HSBC has not foreclosed on the property. (HSBC Bank's Opposition) On July 28,2014,the City of Salem(the"City")filed a Petition to Enforce State Sanitary Code and Motion to Appoint a Receiver with respect to the property after the City's Sanitarian had found numerous Sanitary Code violations at the property including unsecured windows and doors,severe rodent infestation,large piles of trash and yard waste of which the record owner had been notified and had failed to correct. On the basis of these violations,along with the longstanding history of the property as a nuisance to the community,the City sought the appointment of a receiver. At the hearing on the City's Motion,the owner of the property, William P. Squibb,appeared and informed the court that he had no objection to the appointment of a receiver for the property. By Order of this Court dated August 22,2014,The Charles Hope Companies,LLP was appointed Receiver of the property and charged with correcting the above-referenced Sanitary Code violations. On October 13,2014,the Receiver filed a Motion for Approval of Receiver's Preliminary Budget. HSBC filed an Opposition to Receiver's Motion. On November 5,2014,after a hearing, the Court denied the Receiver's Motion as beyond the scope of its original Order appointing the Receiver. Subsequent to the hearing on November 5,2014,the City's Building Commissioner, Thomas St. Pierre,ordered a new inspection of the property. On November 18,2014,Larry Ramdin,the Health Agent for the City,issued a letter to the property owner stating that upon inspection of the property, the Board of Health has found the property to be unfit for human -2 - habitation pursuant to 105 CMR 410.831(D)of the State Sanitary Code.Specifically,the Board of Health found that there is no water service,no working plumbing or electrical systems,a severe mold infestation,a leaking roof with water pooling in the third floor unit,no smoke or carbon monoxide detectors, and peeling and collapsing plaster walls and ceilings.The Board of Health also found that there were broken windows and openings around the building for entrance of pests and animals;trash and debris in and out of the building as well as what appears to be disturbed asbestos in the basement.The Board of Health ordered the condemnation of the property. A copy of the Board of Health's order was sent to all parties to this action,including HSBC. (Exhibit A,City's Motion to Expand Scope) Also on November 18,2014,the City's Building Inspector,Thomas St. Pierre,issued a citation for violations of the State Building Code (780 CMR)including failure to maintain proper egress (Chapter 10),failure to maintain smoke detectors(Chapter 9),and failure to maintain the roof (Chapter 15). (Exhibit B,City's Motion to Expand Scope.) II. ARGUMENT A. PROPERTY'S BLIGHTED CONDITION AND ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSIBLE PARTY MERIT THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE RECEIVERSHIP The City's Motion should be allowed as the property's current blighted condition and continuing deterioration have resulted directly from the neglect of the owner and the lenders, including HSBC. The property's condition presents a textbook example of the reasons why the legislature granted the broad powers contained in M.G.L.Chapter 111,51271 to this Court. The property has been in disrepair since 1994. Despite its condition,the property was used to secure a mortgage in excess of$300,000 in 2006. The owner defaulted on the loan and walked away from the property. The lender then denied the owner access to the property in the aftermath of - 3 - the default,but took no steps to maintain the property. HSBC has still not foreclosed on the property. While the property has remained in legal limbo,its condition has continued to worsen,resulting in more Sanitary Code violations and greater risk to the public. The property has remained open to the elements and has continued to deteriorate throughout this period,rendering it completely uninhabitable. The Sanitary Code violations cited since the Receiver was originally appointed are serious and extensive,meriting expansion of the scope of the Receiver's authority. The City's letter of November 18,2014,to the owner of the property,cited numerous serious Sanitary Code violations including: no water service,no working plumbing or electrical system,severe mold infestation throughout the building,a leaking roof,no working smoke or carbon monoxide detectors,collapsing walls,broken windows and other openings allowing pests,trash,litter and debris and what appears to be disturbed asbestos. A copy of this letter was provided to all parties to this matter,despite HSBC's claim that it did not receive notice. (Exhibit A,City's Motion to Expand Scope) While the City acknowledges that it was late in presenting these code violations to this Court,there is no question that these violations are true and real as evidenced by the photographs presented at the earlier hearing on the Receiver's Motion to Approve a Preliminary Budget. The City is more than willing to facilitate a site visit if the Court would like to observe firsthand the current condition of the property. B. HSBC HAS OPPOSED THE CITY S MOTION WITHOUT PRESENTING ANY PLAN TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY AND REMEDIATE THE CODE VIOLATIONS. HSBC has presented no plan to address and remediate the issues raised by the City in both its petitions. At no time during this process has HSBC acted to stem the deterioration of the property and has only sought to block the actions of the City and the Receiver to remediate the Sanitary Code violations and return the property to habitable use. There is no evidence that the -4 - original lender or its successor in interest,HSBC,has ever visited the property,let alone sought to address its condition or respond to the City's concerns. HSBC is asserting its rights with respect to its financial interest in the property,but has accepted no responsibility for the condition of the property,which stems in large part to its own inaction. Its financial interests have been speculative at best,as evidenced by the wisdom of lending and/or acting as an assignee for a loan that should not have been made(and would likely never have been made if the property had ever been inspected). More importantly,however,even now,as HSBC seeks to renew its opposition to the Receiver's budget,the bank has not put forth any proposal for remediating the sanitary code violations or taken any action to address the deplorable condition of the property. III. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons,the City respectfully requests this Court grant its Motion to Expand the Scope of the Order Appointing Receiver. Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 10,2014 CITY OF SALEM, By its Attorney, Victoria Caldwell,Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 vcaldwell@salem.com Tel: 978-619-5634 BBO#549848 - 5 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the within Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Expand Scope Of Order Appointing Receiver was this day served upon the following Respondents in hand and mailed via first class mail,: William P.Squibb Old Colony Maritime,LLC 509 Cabot Street 6 Kimball Lane,Suite 400 Beverly,MA 01915 Lynnfield,MA 01940 HSBC Bank,USA,National Association, as Trustee Alan Hope,Executive Director Vanessa V. Pisano,Esq. The Charles Hope Companies LLP Hinshaw&r Culbertson LLP Rachel Judkins,Esq. 28 State Street,24`h Floor Manzi Bonanno&Bowers Boston,MA 02109 280B Merrimack Street Methuen,MA 01844 SIGNED under the pains and penalties of perjury. Dated: December 10,2014 4k— (5- LtA.I.-c 4 Victoria B.Cdwell -6- I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS: NORTHEAST DIVISION HOUSING COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-177 CITY OF SALEM, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. SQUIBB;HSBC BANK,USA,NA, AS TRUSTEE; and OLD COLONY MARITIME, LLC, Respondents. HSBC BANK,USA,N.A.AS TRUSTEE'S OPPOSITION TO CITY'S MOTION TO EXPAND SCOPE OF ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND RECEIVER'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET The Respondent, HSBC Bank USA,National Association, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-C, Mortgage-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-C, erroneously sued as "HSBC Bank,USA,NA, as Trustee" ("HSBC Bank as Trustee"or"Respondent"),objects to and opposes the Motion to Expand Scope of Order Appointing Receiver filed by the City of Salem (the "City") and the Renewed Motion for Approval of Preliminary Budget filed by the Receiver, The Charles Hope Companies, LLP (the "Receiver").I Receiver").1 The City's Motion should be denied because allowing the City to expand the scope of the receivership to include new code violations without providing any prior notice would unfairly deprive HSBC as Trustee of an opportunity to remedy the code violations or protect its property interests. Moreover, should this Court allow the City's 1 For the sake of clarity, HSBC as Trustee has responded to both the City's and Receiver's Motions in this Opposition whereas the two Motions are interrelated and the Receiver's Motion is contingent on the Court's approval of the City's Motion. 34473722x1 0962791 Motion, this Court should still deny the Receiver's Renewed Motion because the revised budget of$415,000 is excessive and contains numerous repairs that are not necessary to abate conditions that impair the public's health or safety. This Court should also reject the Receiver's revised budget because, if allowed, it would constitute a regulatory taking of the property at issue, namely, 12 Hazel Street, Salem, Massachusetts (the "Property"), because it would wipe out the collateral to HSBC Bank as Trustee's first lien mortgage. Accordingly, this Court should deny the City's Motion, deny the Receiver's Renewed Motion and order the Receiver to submit a revised budget that directly (and clearly) addresses the only code violations cited in the City's Petition and/or any conditions that impair the public's health or safety. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 15,2006, William P. Squibb and Lorelei Azarian(the"Borrowers")executed a promissory note (the "Note") in the original amount of$308,750 and granted a mortgage (the "Mortgage") in favor of Fremont Investment & Loan ("Fremont"), relating to real property located at 12 Hazel Street, Salem, Massachusetts, i.e., the Property. On May 1, 2012, MERS, as nominee for Fremont, assigned the Mortgage to HSBC Bank as Trustee (the "Assignment of Mortgage"). In or around 2011, the Borrowers defaulted under the terms of the Note and Mortgage. HSBC Bank as Trustee is currently in the process of foreclosing on the Property. This code enforcement action was commenced in July 2014. In May 2014, the City inspected the Property and sent the Borrowers notices of the code violations that were discovered during the inspection of the Property. See City's Notices of Code Violations dated May 22, 2014 attached hereto as Exhibit "A." As the owners, William Squibb and Lorelei Azarian, failed to address the code violations, the City petitioned this Court for appointment of a receiver to 2 344737220 0962791 r remedy alleged violations of the Massachusetts State Sanitary Code (the "Sanitary Code") cited in the City's inspection report and notices of code violations. The hearing on the City's Petition to Enforce the Sanitary Code and Appoint a Receiver (the "City's Petition")was held on August 13, 2014. ,On August 22, 2014, this Court entered an order appointing The Charles Hope Companies, LLP as receiver for the Property (the "Order Appointing Receiver"). See Order Appointing Receiver attached hereto as Exhibit"B." The Order Appointing Receiver, which was drafted by Receiver's counsel and approved by the City,specifically addresses the scope of the Receiver's "authority and duties." See Exhibit B at p. 2. For instance, paragraph 2(G) expressly states that the Receiver is authorized to "correct all Code violations cited by [the City] as specified in said inspection report(s)." See id. (emphasis added). These "inspection report(s)" and "notices of violations" referenced in the Order Appointing Receiver are attached as exhibits to the City's Petition and cite to the Petition and identify the specific code violations to be addressed. See id. at p. 1. The code violations issued on May 22, 2014 to the owner, Mr. Squibb, underlying this matter are identified in the City's Petition to Enforce State Sanitary Code as follows: (1) CMR 410:600 Storage of Rubbish and Garbage; (2) CMR 410:601 Collection of Rubbish and Garbage; and (3) CMR 410:602 Maintenance of Areas Free From Garbage and Rubbish. See Exhibit A. The City sent another letter on May 22, 2014 to Mr. Squibb indicating that "several areas of the building are open to the outside, which allow the entry of rodents and other requesting extermination by a licensed exterminator. Id. The affidavit of the Director of Public Property/Building Commissioner attached to the Petition indicated that the Property is vacant, but was already boarded by the City in October 2011. Id. 3 344737220 0962791 On or about October 15, 2014, despite the fact that the Order Appointing Receiver specifically limits the scope of work to only those repairs necessary to "correct the Code violations cited in [the City's] inspection reports," i.e., remove trash and exterminate and fill openings, the Receiver submitted a preliminary budget for $360,000. After hearing on November 5, 2014, this Court denied the Receiver's Motion for Approval of Preliminary Budget finding that it was "beyond the scope" of the receivership as set out in the Order Appointing Receiver. See Court's Order dated November 5, 2014 Denying Preliminary Budget attached hereto as Exhibit"C." After this Court denied the Receiver's preliminary budget as "beyond the scope" of the Order Appointing Receiver,the City's Building Commissioner,Thomas St. Pierre,ordered a new inspection of the Properly to support the Receiver's proposed scope of work and preliminary budget. On or about November 18, 2014, the City conducted an exterior and interior inspection of the Property. According to the City's notice dated November 18, 2014, the City found the following "new" code violations not previously cited: (1) no water service; (2) no working electrical system; (3) mold infestation; (4) roof is leaking; (5) no working smoke detectors; (6) peeling/collapsing plaster walls and ceilings; and (7)third floor bathroom ripped out. See City's November 18, 2014 Inspection Report attached hereto as Exhibit"D." The City has submitted its Motion to expand the Order Appointing Receiver in an attempt to include these additional code violations within the scope of receivership, and to justify the proposed budget previously submitted by the Receiver in this case. Contemporaneous with the filing of the City's Motion to expand the receivership, the Receiver has submitted its Renewed Motion and requesting the Court to approve a revised budget of $414,016.79, which is 4 34473722v1 0962791 approximately $55,000 more than the budget previously submitted by the Receiver found by this Court to be beyond the scope of receivership. For the reasons discussed below, this Court should deny the City's Motion, deny the Receiver's Renewed Motion and should limit the scope of the receivership to remedying the code violations cited in the City's inspection report and notices attached to the City's Petition (per the original Court's Order Appointing Receiver) and/or any serious conditions that pose a risk to the public's health or safety. II. ARGUMENT A. THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE CITY'S MOTION TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF RECEIVERSHIP AND LIMIT REPAIRS TO ONLY THOSE NECESSARY TO REMEDY THE CODE VIOLATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND/OR ANY SERIOUS CONDITIONS THAT POSE RISK TO PUBLIC'S HEALTH OR SAFETY 1. Expanding the Scope of the Receivership To Include New Code Violations Would Violate the Notice Requirements Under the Receivership Statute The Court should deny the City's Motion because permitting the City to retroactively expand the original scope of receivership after the appointment of a receiver violates the letter and spirit of the receivership statute. General Laws c. 111, § 127A-N reflect a comprehensive legislative attempt to effectuate compliance with minimum health and safety standards for residential premises. There are several sections of Chapter 111, § 127 which require the petitioner and/or receiver to provide the mortgagee with adequate notice of the code violations and/or code enforcement action. See G.L. c. 111, §§ 12713-1), F, H and J. The notice requirements serve to balance the intended purpose and regulated scope of the receivership statute. Indeed, the statute is intended to promote and ensure compliance with minimum health 5 9447372200962791 i I and safety without unfairly usurping any interest an entity or person may have in the property. Negron v. Gordon, 373 Mass. 199,203-04(1997). Here, the City is asking the Court to disregard the procedural notice requirements afforded to mortgagees under the statute by seeking expansion of the receivership to include numerous other code violations that were never cited in any report or notice sent to Mr. Squibb or HSBC as Trustee before the commencement of this action. Indeed, HSBC as Trustee was just recently informed of these "new" code violations by the City's inspection report dated November 18, 2014. (See City's Motion at Exhibit A.) Because HSBC as Trustee never received notice of any of these code violations before the commencement of this action, as required by under the statute, HSBC as Trustee was never afforded a fair opportunity to remedy the code violations. See Negron, 373 at 203-04. Therefore, this Court should deny the City's Motion because permitting the City to retroactively expand the scope of the receivership to include these new code violations without providing proper notice to the owner and all parties-in-interest would unfairly deprive HSBC as Trustee of an opportunity to remedy the code violations and protect its interest in the Property.. 2. The Court's Order Appointing Receiver Is Controlling as to the Receiver's Authority The Court's Order Appointing Receiver, which was drafted by Receiver's counsel and approved by the City, is the controlling document regarding the Receiver's authority and is unambiguous as to the scope of such authority. Specifically, the Order Appointing Receiver clearly states that the Receiver has authority to "correct Code violations cited by [the City] in said inspection reports" attached to the Petition. See Exhibit B. The Order Appointing Receiver makes no reference to any of the code violations cited in the recent inspection report dated November 18, 2014. Nor can it be argued that the November 18, 2014 inspection report should 6 34373722v1 0962791 attached to the City's Petition; (2) the City had every opportunity to define the scope of receivership before seeking appointment of a receiver; and (3) the City has not provided any viable excuse for failing to include these code violations within the scope of receivership. B. THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE RECEIVER'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET BECAUSE THE RECEIVER'S REVISED BUDGET IS EXCESSIVE AND CONTAINS REPAIRS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF RECEIVERSHIP 1. The Receiver's Revised Budget Is Excessive And Contains Numerous Repairs That Do Not Pose a Risk of Harm to the'Public's Health or Safety As previously argued in its Opposition to the Receiver's first Motion for Approval of Preliminary Budget, HSBC as Trustee contends that this Court should deny the Receiver's revised budget because it is excessive in light of the few code violations cited in the City's Petition and the property has been abandoned by the record owner, Mr. Squibb, and is current vacant. This Court previously denied the Receiver's $360,000 proposed budget finding that it was not supported by the City's Petition and beyond the scope of the Order Appointing Receiver. See Exhibit C. The Court ordered the Receiver to resubmit a revised budget that was narrowly tailored to address the specific code violations cited in the City's Petition and/or any serious conditions that pose a risk of harm to the public's health or safety. See id. Instead, the Receiver has resubmitted an even more far-reaching budget of$415,000, which contains additional repairs not included in the first proposed budget. (See Receiver's Renewed Motion at Exhibit B.) The Receiver's "revised budget" of$415,000 is excessive because it is approximately $55,000 more than the original budget of $360,000, and is three times the current value of the Property ($120,000 as of August 2014). The excessiveness of the $415,000 revised budget is underscored by the fact that it contains numerous repairs that do not pose a risk to the public's health or safety. (See id.) 8 34473722x1 0962791 I be included within the definition of "said inspection reports" whereas the Order Appointing Court was entered on August 22, 2014 and therefore predates thi November 18, 2014 inspection report. Had the City intended to include these code violations it the scope of proposed work or to expand the scope of receivership to include any other code violations discovered during subsequent inspections, the City should have included such language in the Order Appointing Receiver. The City failed to do so. The City has further failed to provide any reason or argument to excuse the omission of these new code violations as part of the scope of receivership in the original Order Appointing Receiver. Moreover, of import, the City was not without administrativd tools to define the scope of receivership before it commenced this action. Indeed, the City was authorized to seek the Court's permission to conduct an administrative inspection of the Property before seeking appointment of a receiver. See G.L. c. 94C, § 30. If it had done so,the City would have had the opportunity to fully inspect the interior of the Property and to provide HSBC as Trustee with adequate notice of all the code violations that needed to be addressed to avoid appointment of a receiver. Instead, the City petitioned the Court to appoint a receiver based only on the few code violations referenced in the City's Petition; namely, the removal of trash and debris and filling in any openings to make property weather-tight. The City had an opportunity to conduct an interior inspection to ensure that all code violations were cited in the City's inspection report and included in the scope of the receivership before it petitioned the Court for appointment of a receiver. However,the City failed to do so. As such, this Court should deny the City's Motion because: (1) the Order Appointing Receiver,which was approved by the City before presented to this Court,clearly limits the scope of the Receiver's authority to addressing only the code violations cited in the inspection reports 7 344737220 0962791 Indeed, by their Motions, the Receiver and the City represent that expanding the receivership is necessary to remedy code violations which "impair the health, safety, and well-being of the abutters and residents of the City and constitute a public nuisance," and that the revised budget is "in line with the...inspection and citations." (See City's Motion at p. 1; see Receiver's Renewed Motion at p. 5.) While the City and Receiver correctly recognize that the scope of this receivership should be limited to remedying code violations that "impair the health, safety and well-being of the abutters and residents," they fail to put forth any evidence or argument to establish that the "new" code violations fall within this category and therefore necessitate the expansion of the receivership. Quite the opposite, since the Property is vacant many of the suggested repairs included in the Receiver's revised budget are not necessary to remove any serious condition or public nuisance and therefore fall outside the scope of this receivership. It is well-settled that the Massachusetts receivership statute, M.Q.L. c. 111, § 127 et seq., applies to both occupied and unoccupied residential properties. See City of Boston v. Rochalska, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 236, 246 (2008) (interpreting the receivership statute to apply to vacant as well as occupied buildings);see also Negron v. Gordon, 373 Mass. 199, 201-02 (1997) ("General Laws c. 111, ss 127A-127N reflect a comprehensive legislative attempt to effectuate compliance"); M.G.L. c. 111, § 127I. However, the decision to appoint a receiver and the scope of receivership is based, at least in part, on whether the property is vacant or occupied. See City of Malden v. Flores, 2011 WL 4460714, at *1 (Mass. Dist. Ct. March 11, 2011) (finding many of the suggested repairs excessive because they were "outside the scope of concern for health and safety issues to [the] abandoned building"). This is because the intended purpose of the receivership statute is to promote and ensure compliance with minimum health and safety standards, which varies 9 34473722vl 0962791 depending upon whether the property is vacant or occupied. Indeed, Massachusetts courts have recognized that compliance with health and safety standards is directly proportionate to the perceived risk of harm to occupants or the public. Perez v. Boston Hous. Auth., 379 Mass. 703, 743, 400 N.E.2d 1231, 1254 (1980) (applying concepts of landlord-tenant laws in determining that an occupied property must comply with standards of fitness for human habitation); Boston Hous. Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 192 (1973) (explaining that the Legislature enacted M.G.L. c. l I l to help promote effective enforcement of Code regulations and to ensure that residential housing would meet the minimal standards of habitability); contrast Flores, 2011 WL 4460714, at *I (finding that when a property is vacant or abandoned an owner is only obligated to make "minimum repairs [that] pose a risk of harm to the health or well-being of the public who come in contact with [the]property or live near[the] vacant building") (emphasis added); See Rochalska, 72 Mass, App. Ct. at 244 (reasoning that "[t]hese sections of c. 111 address the need to protect the health and safety of occupants of buildings as well as that of the general public where vacant buildings pose a threat of danger")(emphasis added). The notion that a court's decision to appoint a receiver and the scope of a receivership is based,at least in part,on whether the property is vacant or occupied is further underscored by the express language used in the statute. M.G.L. c. 111, § 127I requires a court to appoint a receiver to undertake remedial action when there are ongoing sanitary code violations in an occupied building "and the court determines that such appointment is the best interest of occupants residing in the property;" but makes appointment discretionary when the property is vacant or abandoned. See Rochalska, 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 244. By making the use of receiverships discretionary in the context of vacant buildings,the Legislature is acknowledging that the need to 10 344737220 0962791 protect health and safety is limited because it is less likely that a "condition"2 present at the property will immediately affect or materially impair the health or safety of a member of the public;unlike tenants of an uninhabitable building. Flores,2011 WL 4460714,at*1. Here, since the Property is vacant, the scope of proposed work should be limited to the abatement of any identified nuisance or danger that would put the public's health or safety at risk. According to the City s inspection report and notices of violations, this would include: (1) securing the Property; (2) making the Property weather-tight; and (3) removing any trash and debris from the exterior of the Property. Nonetheless, the Receiver's revised budget of$415,000 contains numerous repairs for "conditions" that do not affect the health and safety of the public 3 who come in contact with or live near the Property. See Rochalska, 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 245. Accordingly, the Receiver's Renewed Motion should be denied and the Court should limit the scope of receivership to include only those repairs (1) necessary to address the code violations cited in the City's Petition, and/or(2) that pose a risk of immediate harm to the health and safety of the public who come in contact with the property or live near the vacant building. See Flores, 2011 WL 4460714,at *1. 2. The Receiver's Revised Budget Fails to Provide the Detail Necessary to Determine the Reasonableness of the Repairs and Estimates Moreover, in addition to objecting to the Receiver's revised budget on the grounds that it is excessive and contains repairs and improvements outside the scope of receivership, HSBC 2 See 105 CMR 410.750 which lists the conditions so certified by the board of health to be a violation, which may expose or subject to harm,the health or safety,and the well-being of an occupant or the public. 3 For instance, the rehabilitation of this vac property includes, inter glia: (1)painting and decorating; (2) new kitchen and baths;(3)new appliances;(4)"demolition"for an unidentified purpose;(5)new drywall;(6)new floors; (7)new heating system; (8) new electrical; etc. See Exhibit C. The Receiver has failed to establish (because it cannot) how these substantial repairs address the specific code violations cited in the City's inspection reports or relate to the health and safety of the public. As such, these repairs are entirely unjustified and should not be included in the scope of work. 11 34473722vt 0%2791 Bank as Trustee further objects to the Receiver's revised budget because it is devoid of any meaningful information that would serve to substantiate the proposed scope of work. The Sanitary Code permits the Receiver to establish a priority lien to secure repayment of any costs and loans incurred for repair, operation, maintenance or p pe management of the property. M.G.L. c. 111, § 127I. However, the Sanitary Code also requires the Receiver to make only those repairs that are necessary and reasonable. See id. In this case,however,the revised budget submitted by the Receiver lacks any real detail and therefore it is impossible to determine whether the suggested repairs are necessary to remedy the code violations or whether the estimates provided are reasonable based on the scope of proposed work. For instance, the revised budget merely indicates that it will cost $12,500 to remove "trash, debris to start work" without providing any description or information as to the scope of work or the reason(s) for this exorbitant expense. The revised budget also includes$31,000 for rough and finish carpentry relating to the doors and windows and the replacement of ten (10) windows without providing any description or information as to the reason(s)why the windows and doors are being reframed and replaced. Thus, the Receiver's Renewed Motion to Approve the Preliminary Budget should be denied because it is woefully inadequate and devoid of any information or explanation relating to the necessity and reasonableness of the repairs. In the alternative, this Court should require the Receiver to file a supplemental preliminary budget including additional information and/or explanation about the proposed work, and to also provide competitive bids to demonstrate that the estimates for such work are reasonable. Without more, HSBC Bank as Trustee is unable to determine whether the proposed repairs are necessary and costs reasonable to address the safety and health issues while the property remains unoccupied. 12 34473722x10962791 3. The Receiver's Revised Budget, If Allowed, Would Deprive HSBC Bank as Trustee of Any Viable Economic Use And Title to The Property and Would Therefore Constitute a Regulatory Taking If the Receiver's $415,000 revised budget is approved, this receivership action would be about redevelopment of the Property; not about health and public safety. Both the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Court have stated that private property may be subordinated to reasonable regulations that are critical to the general public's health and safety. Fragopolous v. Rent Control.Bd. of Cambridge,408 Mass. 302,307 (1990);see also Mulger v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 665 (1887) (consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, "...all property is this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community"). A state's police power extends to the regulation of land use for the public health, safety or welfare. See Caires v. Building Commr. of Hingham, 323 Mass. 589, 593-95 (1949). However, that is not to say that a municipality is permitted to unreasonably interfere with a property owner's reasonable expectations with regard to his or her ownership rights. See Blair v. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, 457 Mass. 634, 642 (2010). "A regulatory taking, a concept adopted by the United States Supreme Court for the first time in 1922, arises not from the acquisition of an interest in property by the government, but rather from a regulation enacted under the State's police power that severely limits the property's use." See id., citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393,415 (1922). When a regulation, or application of a regulation (as is the case here), substantially restricts the owner's use of the property, so that the regulation "goes too far," it may be deemed a regulatory taking of that property. See id. Whether a regulation "goes too far" is determined by a three-prong test established in the case entitled Penn. Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124-25 (1978). Courts consider (1) "the economic impact of the regulation on the 13 34473722v10962791 claimant"; (2) "the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed i expectations"; and(3) "the character of the governmental action." See Leonard v. Brimfield, 423 Mass. 152, 154 (1996). Additionally, a regulatory taking may be deemed a "categorical taking" if the regulation is such that the owner retains no viable economic use of the property. See Lucas I v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015-16 (1992); Lopes v. Peabody, 417 Mass. 299, 304 (1994). The Penn Central inquiry turns, in large part, upon the magnitude of a regulation's economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with the legitimate property interests. Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 554 U.S. 528, 538 (2005). Here, if the Court approves the Receiver's revised budget, it would constitute a categorical taking because—after the Receiver establishes its lien for $415,000 and exercises its statutory right to foreclosure on the property—HSBC Bank as Trustee would retain no viable economic use of the Property. See M.G.L. c. 111, §§ 127I-127J. Further, should this Court approve the Receiver's revised budget, it would also constitute a regulatory taking because, as applied to HSBC Bank as Trustee in the present case, the regulation, i.e., M.G.L. c. 111, § 127, would have a severe economic impact on HSBC Bank as Trustee. First, the extensive preliminary budget is three (3) times the current value of the Property, and is also more than the original amount of the first mortgage granted to HSBC Bank as Trustee. Second, since the receivership statute permits the Receiver to foreclose on the property to recoup the expenses incurred to rehabilitate the property, not only would HSBC Bank as Trustee's investment be complete usurped by the City and the Receiver, HSBC Bank as Trustee would also be stripped any of ownership interest in the Property. See M.G.L. c. 111, § 127J. Thus, if the Receiver is permitted to proceed with its revised budget, HSBC Bank as Trustee would be deprived of any interest or economic use of the Property. Simply put, the 14 34473722vl 0962791 Court's approval of the Receiver's preliminary budget would effectively wipe out any interest HSBC Bank as Trustee has in the Property. Thus, if the preliminary budget is approved and the Receiver is allowed to proceed with this complete rehabilitation of the Property, it would constitute a compensable regulatory taking, given the severe economic impact on HSBC Bank as Trustee. Daddario v. Cape Cod Comm'n,425 Mass. 411,416(1997). Finally, the City cannot justify the far-reaching preliminary budget in the amount of $415,000 as a legitimate exercise of its police power. Indeed, the Receiver's excessive budget goes far beyond merely correcting the code violations cited in the City's inspection report or protecting the public from any potential danger or health concern. Instead,the $415,000 is for a complete rehabilitation of the property—including extensive interior repairs—that in no way relates to the public's safety, health or welfare. (See Receiver's Renewed Motion.) As such, to allow the Receiver carte blanche to make any and all repairs that it deems "necessary" would ignore the intended purpose of the receivership statute, and would upset the balance between protecting the public's interest and protecting private property rights that is encompassed by the three-prong Penn Centrad test. See Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 438 U.S. 104 at 124-125, 130-131. Such an outcome would justify elevating public interest over private property rights in all cases, even when no true threat to public safety or welfare exists. Indeed, it is not the intended purpose of the receivership statute to usurp a property owner's rights in the interest of developing a property. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly,based on the foregoing,this Court should deny the City's Motion to Expand Scope of Order Appointing Receiver since the City had every opportunity to define the scope of receivership before the commencement of this receivership action and further failed to provide 15 34473722vl 0962791 HSBC as Trustee with adequate notice of the "new" code violations cited in the City's recent inspection report dated November 18, 2014. Moreover, this Court should deny the Receiver's Renewed Motion for Approval of Preliminary Budget because it is excessive and contains numerous repairs to remedy code violations that do not pose a serious risk of harm to the general public and therefore are outside the scope of receivership. Respectfully submitted, HSBC Bank USA,National Association, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-C,Mortgage-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-C By: . ys, v Justin M.Fa elle,BBO#654859 Vanessa V. Pisano, BBO#679649 Hinshaw&Culbertson LLP 28 State Street,24th Floor Boston,MA 02109 617-213-7000 617-213-7001 Dated: December 9,2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vanessa V. Pisano, hereby certify that on this 9th day of December 2014, I served a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document to counsel of record by US Mail as follows: Victoria B. Caldwell Rachel L.Judkins City of Salem Legal Department Manzi Bonanno&Bowers 93 Washington Street 280B Merrimack Street Salem,MA 01970 Methuen MA 01844 William P. Squibb Old Colony Maritime, LLC 509 Cabot Street 6 Kimball Lane, Suite 400 Beverly,MA 01915 Lynnfield, MA 01940 V Vanessa V.Pisano 16 34473722v1 0962791 CITY OF SALEM)MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH 120 WASHINGTON S1REEf,41"FLOOR TEL.(978)741-1800 FAX(978)745-0343 KMERLEYDRISCOLL lramdiu(R)saien.wm MAYOR I.1RItYRA1rIDIN,RS/REBS,CIlU,CP-NS HFrU.177AGEN1' May 22,2014 William P.Sgm'bb 509 Cabot Shoot Beverly,MA 01915 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 70121640 0002 3313 2893 RegularMall Dem Properly Owner: This office has received many complaints regarding rodents and other wildlife living on your property located at 12 Head Street lm the city of Safom,Massachusetts. An on-site inspection was conducted on MayM 7,014 by David Grembum,Senior Sanitarian for the Board ofHestth. There are sovoral meas of building that ata open to the outside which allow the entry of rodeo gad other animals. Additionally,these me Ingo piles of tresb and yard waste on the properly. These conditions create an ideal hmboage for rodents. Raccoons,rodeo,atc.we considered a neighborhood nuisance and community health hazard no property must be erderminelad by a licensed exterminator. After eueminadon has Woon place any barrows must be filled and monitored,ail openings in the building meet be mesad to prevent the entrance of rodents and other animals and you must tela all necessary steps to prevent any infestation from ooamring In the fine's. In accordance with Mass General Lawa,Chapter HI,Section 123 you are ordered to rotate the services of a licensed exterminator and suppress any rodent population within fourteen(14)days of receipt of this order and a copy of this Invoice most be forwarded to this department upon completion of the extermination, Should you be aggrieved by this order,you have the tight to request a bearing before the Board of Health. A raqueat for said heating must be received in writing in the office ofthe Hoard of Health within 2D=of receipt oftbis order. At said hearing,you will be given an opportunity to be heard and to present witness end docmnentmy evidence as to why this aft should be modified or withdrawn. You may be represented by an attomey. Please also be informed that you have Ike right to inspect sod obtain copies of all relevant impaction or Investigation reports,wdea,and odor doeamanmry information in the possession of this Board,and that may adverse party has the right to be present at the hemiag. If you have any queotions or concerns please call this office at 978-741.1800. I tank you in advance for your cooPWAiOn. For tae Board of Heft: Reply to: e,—&VI, David J.Greenbaum Lary Ramdia Senior sanitarian Health Agent i MUM MalDhnance of Areae Free From(Mfr e and Rubbish W Lend: The owner of any panel of land,veant or olhenwbe,shall be condition and Bee from el t Ind W ter correct any such parcel of lard o e clean and sanitary garbage,nPoDaB,or reams,The ovaUa of each paroel ot tend ahatl torted cry coneglco caused by seronsuch poral orb appurtemmov which affects Do health or safely end we M*ng of the occupants of any dwelling or of the general pobk (8)DwoMng VZW The occupant of any dwelling unit Slag be responsible for maintaining in a dean and sanitary condition and free of garbage, rubbish,other fifth or causes ofsldmees tat part of the dwelling whlM Oft OWuah*occupies or controls. (C)Dwellings Containing Fonar Then Three Dealing Units: in a dwsBng tial conlebm fewer than throe dwelling wits.the occupant Shag be respocel6te for malotelft in a dean and solitary condition five of garbage,rubbish,COW filth Or curses of Sldmese the paha or stsirwaya landing to her or his dealing unit and the landing adjacent to her or his cintgrg ung g the shits,stairways,or landing 61110 not used by another occupant. (D)ODIMMO 8m. In any dwelling,the owner shag be respmW*for maintaining In a clam and sardlary condition tree of garbage,rubbish, Other fib or awes of elaknese tet Pat of the dwelling which Is used In oammm by the oaapods and which Is 11at occupied or controlled by the occupant enxlualvely. (1)The owner of any dwelling abutting a plush passageway or 11bht•of-way owned or used h common with other dwellings orw duh the owner oroccupants under her or his control have the right to use or are in fad whit shag be responsible for maintaining In a dean and angary condition free from garbage,rubbteh,other flith or cause of sldmese that part of the paseagenay or rlght-OkM which abuts her or his property and which aMa Or the axupants under her or his control have the rtght to uce,are In fad using,or which amt owns. i Board M Hglth Regulation a7: 51 Tions d Plamment 8.13 Sega may be placed art aide for municipal collection no sooner than 8 AM the morning of the schaduted collection. 8.1.3 AN oorrtakmas and bags must be placed arbebe no later than 7Am on the day of collection end must be removed tram the Sidewalk on the Same dig as the collection.538h1d Wawa Weight ung Thera maybe no more than 3 confebam or 3 baps are osmbination d ocnreknare and bags totetpg no mora than 3 and welghbg no morethan s hotel otW pounds seen;Plus aro Molly wash gem.Placed curbolde for municipal collection.BA Sulkv Waste One bogy watt gem perweek maybe plead for collection by resid"and allowed smallMrdnessm 6.9 Vard Mato YNdWaste may not be Included In regular munidpal coladl0n. It wit be collected 8 tines per year on a schedule agreed upon by the City and the CIVs contractor.Yard waste must be placed In yard waste paper bags or open containers dearly marked as wyand wage.'Trimmings may be bunged In Isaglhs no more than three feet long.(branders may riot have a dWneW wider then 3 Magas)and weigh no mono than 80 panda. You aro hereby Ordered to make a good faith srmd to cared these violations wbM 24(hang four)hours of recolpt of tide notice. Falpre an your par to comply within the specified time will result In a complaint being sought against you In Salem District Cour Should you be sggrbwd by this oder,you have the rights;requests hears g before the Board of Heafth. A request forsaid heartng mU$t be MWved M w Q In the office of the Bead of MOM within Z 2MM of receipt of thf/oder. At seld hearing,you w0 bs groan an opPorhdy to be Beard and to present witness and documentary evldena as to why thio order should be modified orwdmdrown. You maybe represented by anatiomey. Plesse also be Informed that you have the right to Inspect and d t In copies of ell rohvant Mepedbn or Irwsetigathm reports,ochre,and other documentary Information to the paseesbn of this Bad,and Oat any adverse party has the right to be present at the hearing. One or more of the above violations constOutea a cordlllon,which may endanger or mateteUy Impair tae nWM or alley and well-being of the occupant(s) or the general public. O you hew any quOSUM,godly confect this oHbe at(878)741.1800. For the Board of Haab Reply to: U'Rangln 11kc[Greenba rn Heafth Agent Senior Sanitarian' ea WadOoumcffor RECEIVED BY OMEN UW DEPARTMENT AUG 30 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS M"WS: ESSEX,ss. HOUSING COURT DEPARTMENT NORTHEAST DMSION CIVIL DOCKET NO. 14-CV-177 CITY OF SALEM Plaintiff V. WILLIAM P.SQUIBB,ET AL Defendants ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER Pursuant to G.L.c. 111, § 127F-J and the general equitable powers of this Court,after hearing,hereby finds and orders as follows:Defendants enjoy an interest in a residential dwelling situated at and commonly referred to as 12 Hazel Street,Salem,Massachusetts("the property"). There exists at said property conditions that are in violation of the standards of fitness for human habitation established under the State Sanitary and/or Building Code(s). Said violations,which are specifically cited in plaintiffs inspection report attached to the Petition,constitute a violation of the State Sanitary and/or Building Code(s). Said conditions may endanger or materially impair the health or well being of the public or any occupants at the property. Despite being ordered to correct said violations,defendants failed to do so. Ile failure to maintain the property in compliance with said Code(s)has put any occupant(s)of the property and the public at risk of irreparable harm to their health and safety. The serious nature of said Code violations will not be promptly remedied unless a receiver is appointed. Immediate action by the Court, and the appointment of a receiver is in the best interest of any occupant of the property and the municipality. Accordingly,it is hereby ordered that: 1. The Charles Hope Companies,LLP be appointed Receiver of the property, which ""bumble to this receivership,and its costs of bonding and liability insurance. Second:to correct Code violations as cited above,and; (1.) The Receiver shall file a report with this Court setting forth all expenses and disbursements of the receivership with an accounting of all funds received by the Receiver dining the period covered by such report; 3. The Receiver shall not be required to furnish bond or surety,but slut,provide proof of suitable liability insurance coverage for the approve,of the coon within ten(10)days of this order; 4. Pursuant to G.L Chapter l 11,s.127F,aoy/all tenants ofthe property are hereby ordered to Pay their rent to the Receiver on or before the first day of each mouth following this order until the receivership is dissolved; S. The Receiver shall have no responsibilities whatsoever to melte repairs or to remedy said code violations or to make my advances whatsoever on acecount of the property except from the revenues received in its capacity as Receiver•, 6, The Receiver shall have the righty to resign upon fourteen days notice to the Court i and parties,which notice shall include an accounting ofall funds received and distributed by the Receiver during the tam of its appoinneent Aay such resignation shall be etfactive only when the Court so orders. Upon mmPation, the Receiver shall assign my excess amounts received by it to the Court or its successor Receiver together with an egripmeut,fixtures and supplies used in connection with the carrying out of this order; 7. The Receives or its successor shall have 8 prlotity Jim as allowed by G.Lc,t 11,§ CrrY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 1.( BOABDOFHBALTA •. ." ' 120 0AWN0�0N&REi r,Ou PL¢oR M 741-IS00F,4s(979)745-0343 — ICIlr18ffitLSYDHZCp(I. 1o1RRYA&1rWJN R3/R6C4CAD,Cm :1MAYOlt HM7W AOSW - November 1S,2014 SwCabotewel :eeinaly,r�►o1916', ' :.. Rs: 12 flsasl$blot ` Salem.MA 01970 • -- '• DearSfrortNadem: :. -. - Af the requebt of the Bull ft oommlastoner and in aamdence won Massachusetts General Law,Chapter 111,Sections 127A and 127 B aril 106 CMR 410.000:Chapter It,Stall t tary Code,Nlydnarm StandaRie of- t[ness for Human HeWtdm..an i inspection of your residenbe at 12 Hemel Street was conuNated by Davi!Gmenbauin, Senior Sanitaften for die Board of Heats. , Based upon dderminationa:rdade dpMna the MspectlonAbd In accdrdaWw widr '105 CMR 410.1M1;the Bc4rd•cf H•altli determines that the danger to theift or- t - Health of occupdnts is 00-Imrnediate,bondemmMon 16 ordenid immedlefely to the f edttre dwelling and the-hearing requlreRrents of 106 CMR 410;831B and C are , ' .-. ..... walirod. All ocCbPerrtas•ierthe�Ibrlellli eT8 Ortler'ed t0 Va680a�urdts boupola lr for IMM purpose. 9 OWpsreort refrees to Move tba'dwelprng 1heY, may be fomMly removed by qia eoard:of Heaf Wbr-by boat pollee duthoriNes on the request of the Board or Health.Cmntraetop and workers nw enter on •. dwdit between the hours of SAM and APIA for tfwowpoes of naddng rep'aim.'. ••and corrWMng vfolattorn to oom*.wllh 10&CMR 410 000, Chapter ll Slate B&OW Codes PInir M Standarrw of Fitness for Himan Habitation The Board of Hem dies 106 CMR 410.831 (D)of go State;Sart wy'Cdds,Miinimam Standards OURnessfor.Hamarr Habitaffm-TOM.- .. 7t6ft ie wmndy no water gwww to die bidldin9 end'no wonting plumMng'In to buldiris. • There B no wortdne eleobbei system. • There is a savors mow infestation throughout the entire dwaling. • The roof is 1 9 va bu*o and•puMes"of water Btenryl the 3°tioci:iwd. • Thewme no worldng emote detectors Or Old n monwdde detectors 10% • The edre dwelt i)88 ' :Pketerwih and csiAipe, The 3"door baMmom te wnpletely dpped out _