Attleboro mutual liquidating trust
delay the resolution of disputes properly before it.'" Boston v. 93A claim is reversed and another trial is ordered, the plaintiff is not entitled to relitigate his contract claim even though the Housing Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over that matter. Because of that failure, judgment has become final at least in regard to the contract counts, and the plaintiff is precluded from relitigating those matters. [Note 1] The defendant argues that, if the judgment in the c. Here, the plaintiff failed to appeal the judgment entered in favor of the defendant on the combined contract count.
176D because it did not conduct a reasonable investigation before denying liability under the policy.
The issues raised by the plaintiff's action are not concerned with housing in its various aspects but, rather, whether the defendant improperly denied liability under an insurance policy and whether the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation before denying liability. "To hold otherwise would be to fail to heed the admonition of [Police Commr.
We conclude that the Legislature did not intend that the Housing Court have subject matter jurisdiction over this type of case. 332 , 340 (1976)] Page 525 that there must be `reasonable limits on [the] court's jurisdiction' .
Count I alleged that the defendant had violated the terms of the insurance policy by not reimbursing the plaintiff for the damages caused by the fire. The record does not show that there was any ruling expressly made on that issue. On December 1, 1986, the judge allowed the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Even if not raised below, however, it is "the duty of an appellate court to consider a jurisdictional question on its own motion .
On April 22, 1986, the plaintiff filed a two-count complaint in the Housing Court Department, Hampden Division. In its answer, the defendant raised, among other things, the lack of jurisdiction of the Housing Court over the subject matter of the plaintiff's complaint. As a result, the defendant's denial of liability under the policy was justified, and judgment was entered for the defendant. In regard to Count III, the judge found that the defendant had violated both G. Although the defendant raised three issues on appeal, it did not include the issue of the jurisdiction of the Housing Court over the subject matter of the plaintiff's action.
Prior to oral argument, we recognized that the subject matter jurisdiction issue was of significance and requested that the parties submit supplemental briefs on the matter. 575, Section 2, sets out the scope of the subject matter jurisdiction of the Housing Court.