Hello,

I would have posted this under the category “Contract Law” but could not find one. Therefore I'm posting here.

We are in the middle of a court case involving a lengthy Complaint with multiple Defendants and Plaintiffs. The case comes down to whether or not a Contract (involving property) between one of the Defendants and one of the Plaintiffs is indeed a Contract. The Contract was entered into as a “binding addendum to the Will” of one of the Defendants and was entitled “Addendum to the Will”.

At the time of the writing, both parties understood that it was a contract and it was not to go into effect unless a) the Will was contested or b) the Defendant party of the contract changed the will that was written at the same time as the contract. The Judge is inclined to rule that the Addendum to the Will is not a separate Contract and is a part of the Will and therefore the Defendant party of the Will can change both documents. The Plaintiffs maintain that even though it was entitled Addendum to the Will, it is a separate contract. In fact, at the time of the writing of both documents, each was placed in a sealed envelope and sent Certified Mail to their CPA.

The question I'm asking therefore, even though the Contract is entitled “Addendum to the Will”, since it was understood by both parties to be a contract and treated as such, is it a contract or is it part of the Will? Thanks for any feedback.

Have you browsed through the information in LawInfo's Free Legal Resource Center to learn more about your issue yet? See: http://www.lawinfo.com/consumer.html and http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/index.html. You can certainly try to speak to a lawyer to determine what legal options may be available. In the meantime, you may be able to learn more on your own. Search the "Free Legal Resources" tab, or browse the Consumer Resources. Good luck.

Thank you Moderator for your feedback. As Pro Se litigants, we have indeed taken advantage of all legal resources available.

Update: In the November 17, 2011 Motion/Hearing: Rule 12 to Dismiss and any other outstanding motions, the Judge ruled against us and we would like to file an appeal. Any suggestions? Thank you for any feedback.

Interesting points on the Judge's ruling:
1. The Motions before the judge were three Massachusetts 12 (b) (6) Motions to Dismiss, yet the judge ruled on the “Defendant's Summary Judgement”. If he converted the Motions to Dismiss to Summary Judgement, we were never notified of this. Do we have to be notified?
2. There were three Motions to Dismiss but the judge ruled on only the Defendant Jesse E. Torres IV's Motion to Dismiss. Are the other two defendant’s (Debtmerica, LLC's and Sophie J. Torres') Motions to Dismiss implied?

We have the entire case (Massachusetts Civil Docket # BACV2011-00433) posted at the website http://plaintiff.jetiii.com. Documents are posted from oldest to newest.

The judge's final ruling can be found here: http://plaintiff.jetiii.com/Document...yJudgement.pdf

Thank you Moderator for your reply. As Pro Se litigants, we have indeed searched the resources on this excellent website.

Update: In the November 17, 2011 Motion/Hearing: Rule 12 to Dismiss and any other outstanding motions, the Judge ruled against us and we would like to file an appeal. Any suggestions? Thank you for any feedback.

Interesting points on the Judge's ruling:
1. At a previous hearing (for Defendant Sophie J. Torres' Motion For Plaintiffs To Cease And Desist From Posting Information In The Internet), the judge (Christopher J. Muse) at numerous times during the hearing commented that we had an excellent argument (with the contract, i.e. Addendum to the Will) so why would we, “muddy the waters”, by posting legal documents on the Internet. At the Nov. 17th hearing (below), he completely reversed himself by saying, “words matter” and that calling the contract an Addendum to the Will, made it a part of the Will and therefore, time of performance had not yet arrived. My husband feels that the judge was prejudiced against us because we defended our First Amendment rights and posted information on the Internet (to keep us from being evicted, at that time). And although he ruled for us, he was not happy with us because a previous judge at a previous hearing cautioned us about posting information on the Internet. Judge Muse said that although he ruled in our favor about the right to post on the Internet, to be careful because, “we would have to face someone in a black robe”, and tugged on his robe.
2. The Motions before the judge (Christopher J. Muse) were three Massachusetts 12 (b) (6) Motions to Dismiss, yet the judge ruled on the “Defendant's Summary Judgement”. If he converted the Motions to Dismiss to Summary Judgement, we were never notified of this. Do we have to be notified?
3. There were three Motions to Dismiss but the judge ruled on only the Defendant Jesse E. Torres IV's Motion to Dismiss. Are the other two defendant’s (Debtmerica, LLC's and Sophie J. Torres') Motions to Dismiss implied?

We have the entire case (Massachusetts Civil Docket # BACV2011-00433) posted at the website http://plaintiff.jetiii.com. Documents are posted from oldest to newest at the bottom.

The judge's final ruling can be found here: http://plaintiff.jetiii.com/Document...yJudgement.pdf

Thank you Moderator for your reply. As Pro Se litigants, we have indeed searched the resources on this excellent website.

Update: In the November 17, 2011 Motion/Hearing: Rule 12 to Dismiss and any other outstanding motions, the Judge ruled against us and we would like to file an appeal. Any suggestions? Thank you for any feedback.

Interesting points on the Judge's ruling:
1. At a previous hearing (for Defendant Sophie J. Torres' Motion For Plaintiffs To Cease And Desist From Posting Information In The Internet), the judge (Christopher J. Muse) at numerous times during the hearing commented that we had an excellent argument (with the contract, i.e. Addendum to the Will) so why would we, “muddy the waters”, by posting legal documents on the Internet. At the Nov. 17th hearing (below), he completely reversed himself by saying, “words matter” and that calling the contract an Addendum to the Will, made it a part of the Will and therefore, time of performance had not yet arrived. My husband feels that the judge was prejudiced against us because we defended our First Amendment rights and posted information on the Internet (to keep us from being evicted, at that time). And although he ruled for us, he was not happy with us because a previous judge at a previous hearing cautioned us about posting information on the Internet. Judge Muse said that although he ruled in our favor about the right to post on the Internet, to be careful because, “we would have to face someone in a black robe”, and tugged on his robe.
2. The Motions before the judge (Christopher J. Muse) were three Massachusetts 12 (b) (6) Motions to Dismiss, yet the judge ruled on the “Defendant's Summary Judgement”. If he converted the Motions to Dismiss to Summary Judgement, we were never notified of this. Do we have to be notified?
3. There were three Motions to Dismiss but the judge ruled on only the Defendant Jesse E. Torres IV's Motion to Dismiss. Are the other two defendant’s (Debtmerica, LLC's and Sophie J. Torres') Motions to Dismiss implied?

We have the entire case (Massachusetts Civil Docket # BACV2011-00433) posted at the website http://plaintiff.jetiii.com. Documents are posted from oldest to newest at the bottom.

The judge's final ruling can be found here: http://plaintiff.jetiii.com/Document...yJudgement.pdf

We have filed a Notice of Appeal in Massachusetts from the Superior Court Ruling allowing the three Defendants' 12(B)(6) Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, which the Court, in its ruling referenced and ruled on as a Summary Judgement Motion (we know they can convert 12(B)(6) to a Summary Judgement). The entire case and can be found at our website at: http://plaintiff.jetiii.com.

We are reading the MA Appellate Procedure Rule 3 and MA Appellate Procedure Rule 4 as well as the Clerk's Guide to Appeals for Lawyers & Self-Represented Litigants and it's still not clear. Our questions are, how do we get copies of the tapes and transcripts from the three hearings that were held? Also, if we file an Affidavit of Indigency, do we have to file a motion in the Superior Court with it?

Quick Background: The reasons we want the tapes is because of the openly hostile statements made during the hearings surrounding a First Amendment issue of posting Public Court Documents on the Internet. The judge repeatedly stated that we had a "good argument" and "why would we want to muddy the waters with these issues" and that we would “soon be answering to a Black Robe". When my husband told him that without the posting of the documents, we would have been put on the streets, he didn't care. Of note, the First Amendment protected us just as it was intended, but appears to have cost us round one of the case. Judge Muse made many, many such prejudicial statements in the three hearings, hence our desire to properly request the tapes/transcripts. He also made numerous statements which reflected his disdain of our use of Quicken Willmaker and of appearing Pro Se.

We did this to protect ourselves from cronyism between the Falmouth Police Department and a former police officer who is now an attorney and representing the other side.

Thank you for taking the time to read our post. Any help would be appreciated.

This case involves over $1,000,000.00 in Real Estate (in this market).
The Contract is undisputed by the other side.

We carried it Pro Se and are now looking for a top notch attorney.
Contact: 617-418-4497 and jadams@jetiii.com.

The case is located at: http://plaintiff.jetiii.com/