By Giles L. Krill
Last October, the Rules Committee of the Supreme Judicial
Court approved “Proposed Land Court
Rule 14: Binding Summary Decision Following
Bench Trial: Waiver by Parties of Special Findings of Fact and Separate Rules
of Law.” The Land Court Department of the
Trial Court promulgated Rule 14 as one of multiple initiatives carried out in
accordance with SJC Chief Justice Ralph
D. Gants’ request that each Trial Court Department convene a working group of
judges, court staff, and attorneys to develop a “menu of options in civil cases
that will ensure litigants the opportunity to have a cost-effective means to
resolve their dispute in a court of law.”
Rule 14 provides litigants and their counsel with the option
to proceed to a bench trial under a stipulation waiving the requirement in
Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(a) that the court
“shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law
thereon.” If such stipulation is approved
by the trial judge, the trial decision need not include “detailed written
findings of fact and rulings of law” but will instead be in a written or oral
form “comparable to a jury verdict.”
Such decision must also, at a minimum, “answer special questions on the
elements of each claim, at a level of detail comparable to a special jury
verdict form pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 49(a).” In addition, the trial decision may include
special or subsidiary findings of fact in a form “comparable to the general
verdict form of a jury accompanied by answers to interrogatories in a case submitted
to a jury as provided in Mass. R. Civ. P. 49(b).” 
Rule 14 is a purely elective rule that not only requires the
parties to voluntarily opt in, but also requires that their attorneys put
significant thought into the stipulation that they submit for court
approval. In addition to waiving Mass.
R. Civ. P. 52(a) findings and rulings, the parties’ stipulation must: i) set
forth the form of any questions of fact they request to have answered by the
trial judge, ii) indicate whether they waive rights of appeal, iii) waive any
argument, both at trial and on appeal, that depends on the existence of
detailed written findings of fact, and iv) acknowledge that the appellate
standard of review shall be “that which would apply to a verdict by a jury in a
case tried to a jury and to the judgment entered thereon.” In order to obtain court approval of the Rule
14 stipulation, it logically follows that the parties should agree to a
substantial number of undisputed facts and frame the trial issues in a manner
that is susceptible to a ruling in the nature of a jury verdict, including by
proposing the form of the “special questions on the elements of each claim”
that must be answered by the trial judge.
While the court retains discretion to render full Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(a)
findings of fact and conclusions of law, Rule 14 specifically provides that
once the court accepts the parties’ stipulation, it shall not make findings or
rulings without first giving the parties a chance to object and be heard.
Rule 14 provides Land Court litigants with a means to obtain
a speedier resolution of their disputes.
Land Court cases often exact a toll on the parties regardless of
outcome. After all, the pendency of
litigation can frustrate attempts to sell, mortgage, develop or otherwise make
profitable use of the land subject to the litigation. Clients feel this hardship with every passing
day that they await a decision and entry of final judgment. However, in certain cases the divisive issue
can be reduced to a discrete “yes or no” question, such as: i) whether a party
can carry its burden of proving title by adverse possession, ii) whether a
municipal by-law applies to a certain land use activity, or iii) whether a
signature on a deed was forged. In such
cases, Rule 14 presents an opportunity for parties to obtain the answer they
need to move on with their lives at or near the conclusion of the trial
evidence in much the same way a jury trial provides more immediate
closure. At the same time, because the
Land Court has an individual calendar system, the parties receive the benefit
of a particular Land Court judge serving as the trier of fact in a case the
judge knows well on its unique facts, in addition to the judge’s extensive
background in commonly occurring issues of law and fact that can permeate real
property controversies.
The final version of Rule 14 differs from the original
version submitted for public comment in March of 2016. Among other differences, the original
proposal simply required the court to “decide only the ultimate issue(s)
tried”, whereas the final version requires at a minimum, that the decision
“answer special questions on the elements of each claim, at a level of detail
comparable to a special jury verdict form.”
This revision ensures that in cases where appellate rights are
preserved, the appellate courts will have some insight into the reasoning of
the Land Court judge.
Wile most parties opting for Rule 14 disposition will
likely reserve rights of appeal, as a practical matter Rule 14 makes the most
sense in controversies where the parties do not intend to appeal. Appeals from civil jury verdicts are
typically confined to issues such as evidentiary rulings and jury instructions,
and it is harder to envision a tenable appeal on such grounds after Rule 14
forces the parties to collaborate on a thoughtful stipulation that streamlines
the case into a discrete set of questions.
Furthermore, the appellate process will add to the delay that is avoided
by opting for a Rule 14 trial decision, and certain categories of Land Court
cases that proceed to trial are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal regardless
of outcome. For example, the appellate
courts will give substantial deference to the fact-finding of the Land Court
judge in assessing matters such as witness credibility or land characteristics
gleaned from a “view” of the property in question. In cases where the outcome turns on such
factual assessments by the trial judge, the parties are not necessarily making
a sacrifice by foregoing the broader spectrum of appellate argument that
findings and rulings under Mass. R. Civ. P. 52(a) might afford. In short, in certain classes of cases in
which the law is long decided and an appellate reversal is unlikely, Rule 14
provides Land Court litigants with a viable path to quicker case closure.
A member of the Association’s litigation section, Giles
Krill has over fifteen years of diverse legal experience, focusing on
commercial litigation, real estate, environmental and land use law. He served
as a REBA representative on the Land Court’s working group which developed Rule
14. His practice includes the representation of individuals and businesses,
including developers, insurers, and lenders. Giles can be reached at
giles@gottliebesq.com.
