Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered whether G. L. c. 185, § 3A, grants exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over major development permit appeals to the Land Court permit session and the Superior Court, thereby excluding the Housing Court. The court concluded that such appeals fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the permit session or Superior Court. It further held that a timely appeal filed in the Housing Court should be transferred to a court with jurisdiction rather than dismissed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Massachusetts General Laws chapter 185, section 3A, implicitly repealed the Housing Court's subject matter jurisdiction under chapter 40A, section 17, over major development permit appeals.
- Whether a major development permit appeal timely filed in the Housing Court should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or transferred to the Land Court permit session or Superior Court.
Holdings
- The Legislature clearly implied that major development permit appeals must be adjudicated only in the permit session of the Land Court or in the Superior Court. Accordingly, the Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such appeals.
- Dismissal is not the appropriate remedy. A timely major development permit appeal filed in the Housing Court should be transferred to the Land Court permit session or the Superior Court so that the plaintiffs do not lose their statutory right to judicial review through no fault of their own.
Key quotations
“In short, we conclude that the clear implication of § 3A is that the Legislature wanted all major development permit appeals to be adjudicated either in the permit session of the Land Court or in the Superior Court and therefore limited jurisdiction over these cases to the permit session of the Land Court and the Superior Court.” (at 20)
“We have long rejected dismissal in comparable circumstances. "[W]hen a court of limited jurisdiction is confronted with a case over which its jurisdiction is doubtful or lacking, the court should not dismiss the case out of hand; rather, 'the proper procedure is for the judge to ask the Chief Administrative Justice to transfer the case, or the judge, or both, to the appropriate department of the Trial Court.'"” (at 21-22)
Factual background
The Greenfield planning board granted Greenfield Investors Property Development LLC a special permit to construct a retail development of not more than 135,000 square feet. The plaintiffs owned property abutting the proposed development and timely appealed the permit under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40A, section 17, by filing in the Housing Court. The project qualified as a major development because it involved at least 25,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs filed their permit appeal in the Hampden Division of the Housing Court on June 7, 2011. The defendants initially sought transfer to the Land Court permit session, but the Chief Justice of the Trial Court denied the request. The Housing Court denied a later motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and reported the ruling. The Appeals Court reversed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review, vacated the Housing Court's order, and remanded for proceedings to transfer the case to a court with jurisdiction.
Remand instructions
The order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss is vacated. The case is remanded to the Housing Court, where the parties must be given thirty days to apply to the Chief Justice of the Trial Court for transfer to either the Land Court permit session or the Superior Court. The Chief Justice must act forthwith, and the transferred case should proceed expeditiously on the merits.