keith slattery review: inflated bill 4

Unfortunately, as this false complaint still exists, the article regarding Attorney Slattery's win in this case must be published. The complaint is falsely made, using a false name, by an individual of poor veracity. The artlicle is as follows: http://masslawyersweekly.com/2011/05/16/landlord-and-tenant-removal-of-property-contempt/

Landlord and tenant – Removal of property – Contempt
By: Tom Egan May 16, 2011

Where the defendant owners of a commercial property were ordered to allow that the plaintiff restaurant to inspect the premises and remove or inventory the plaintiff’s property therein, the defendants must now be found to be in contempt of that order.
“… In order to effectuate a termination of [plaintiff] La Stanza’s tenancy in accordance with ¶19 of the written lease, [defendant] Bank Three was required to make a re-entry and to declare that the lease term was terminated. As the tenancy was not properly terminated, Bank Three could not claim the fixtures, alterations and improvements as belonging to Bank Three. All the fixtures, alterations and improvements, even though attached to the real estate, belonged to La Stanza on January 20, 2009 to the present. La Stanza had a right to remove all of its fixtures, alterations and improvements5. Bank Three did not have a right to restrict or limit La Stanza to removing only its ‘personal property.’
“As a result, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants have failed to comply with ¶2 of the court’s orders dated March 23, 2010 and July 23, 2010 to the present and are, therefore, in contempt. La Stanza’s attorney, Keith Slattery, expended 24.8 hours which did not include any charges for the contempt bearing held on September 30, 2009, at a most reasonable rate of $175.00 per hour, to obtain compliance from the defendants.
“Accordingly, it is ordered:
“(1) the defendants, [Sean] Lahey and Bank Three are adjudged to be in contempt for failure to comply with the following order dated March 25, 2010 by failing to allow the plaintiff and its attorneys, agents, servants or employees to remove or inventory the plaintiffs property located at 315 and 325B Main Street, Woburn, Massachusetts, without delay or restrictions;
“(2) the defendants shall pay the plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $4, 340.00 in the form of a bank or cashier check made payable to Keith Slattery delivered to his law office or Lynn Howell’s address on or before May 23, 2011 as a result of the adjudication of contempt.”
La Stanza Diva Ristorante, Inc. v. Bank Three Realty Trust, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. [protected] pages) (Yee, J.) (Woburn District Court) Keith Slattery for the plaintiff; Jeffrey Bovarnick for the defendants (Docket Nos. 1053CV0286 and 0953SU0305) (May 9, 2011).

...and fees were awarded:

Home / District Court/BMC Appellate Division / Landlord and tenant – Default judgment
Landlord and tenant – Default judgment
By: Tom Egan June 3, 2013

Where a $35, 000 default judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff commercial tenant, the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant commercial lessors’ motion to vacate the default judgment.
“… Attorney’s fees in the amount of $5, 400.00 were also awarded. The defendants have appealed under Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 8C, arguing that: (1) the default judgment was improperly entered and the defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment was improperly denied, (2) damages were not properly awarded because the plaintiff failed to prove damages, the judge failed to hold an evidentiary hearing, and no written findings were issued, and (3) the damages award was affected by the court’s G.L.c. 239, §4 rulings as to when an execution is levied upon in a summary process action. …
“Underlying this action is a prior summary process action. …
“The plaintiff’s claims of deceit, fraud, and breach of contract in this case arise out of the actions taken by the defendants under the terms of the agreement for judgment that the parties entered into in the underlying summary process action. Of particular note in this action is the assertion by the plaintiff in its complaint that the defendants refused to allow the plaintiff access to the premises following the levy on the execution so that it could retrieve its business property and records. …
“The denial of the defendants’ motion to remove the default judgment was not error. As previously noted, the motion was allowed to the extent that the judgment was vacated and an assessment of damages hearing was scheduled. But on the record, there was no abuse of discretion in not removing the default. …
“The defendants failed to satisfy their burden. Assuming that their motion was timely filed, ‘good cause’ was not established through their conclusory statements of miscommunications or misunderstandings, nor did conclusory assertions that there existed valid and meritorious defenses, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims constitute a basis for relief. The decision on a motion to remove a default is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed on appeal unless there is an abuse of that discretion. … There was no abuse of discretion in these circumstances.
“Turning to the remaining issues, we begin by observing that ‘an appellant cannot satisfy its burden of proving judicial error or abuse of discretion in the absence of an adequate record containing all material necessary for appellate review.’ … The defendants argue that erroneous rulings regarding G.L.c. 239, §4 by a judge infected the determination of damages awarded by another judge. They further argue that no evidentiary hearing was held on the issue of damages. We are in no position to address these claims of error because we have not been provided a copy of the transcript of what occurred at the assessment hearing, nor have we been provided with a proper record of what occurred in the context of the motion of the defendants to reconsider the award. …”
La Stanza Diva Ristorante, Inc. v. Bank Three Realty Trust, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. [protected]) (Coven, J.) (Appellate Division, Northern District) Appealed from a decision by Klein, J., in Woburn District Court. Thomas R. Beauvais for the plaintiff; Dana A. Curhan for the defendants (App. Div. No. 13-ADMS-10002) (May 24, 2013).

post by "barbara Draper" is slander and false. See attached leller. I respectfully request that you take down this post. Otherwise, I may be forced to name "complaintsboard" in my suit, as to have juriscdiction for court orders. Thank you.

For her entire life Lynn Howell has pointed the finger at someone else for her problems. She never takes responsibilty.

You are amazing and pathetic "Chef" Lynn Howell. Anyone who would check the record would see it shows that the case was won across the board. Your win was also published in lawyers weekly. And you did not pay a dime! Your slander will not go without a strong rebuttal.