Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223, § 114 (2026)

Excessive or unreasonable attachments; manner of reduction or discharge

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 114. If an excessive or unreasonable attachment, by trustee process or otherwise, is made, the defendant or person whose property has been attached may submit a written motion, in any county, to a justice of the court to which such process is returnable, for a reduction of the amount of the attachment or for its discharge. Notice of such motion shall be served upon each of the parties in accordance with the applicable rules of court. If, upon a summary hearing of the parties, it is found that the action is one to recover for an amount which is liquidated or ascertainable by calculation, and the attachment is for a larger sum than the amount of the claim and such additional amount as is reasonably necessary to include interest thereon and costs likely to be taxed in the action, or if it appears that the amount of the claim is unliquidated and unascertainable by calculation and that the amount of the attachment is excessive or unreasonable, the court shall reduce or dissolve the attachment or order a part of the goods, estates, effects or credits to be released.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1925–2023 · leading case: MacDonald v. MacDonald, 552 N.E.2d 533 (Mass. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MacDonald v. MacDonald, 552 N.E.2d 533 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 2× “12 Although the credit union may not intervene in the contempt case, because the judgments and execution remain closed pursuant to the time limitation in rule 60 (b), the motion remains pending for further proceedings on remand in accordance with G.”

Wood v. Wood, 342 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1976). “It does not appear that the attachment was excessive or that reduction was sought under G. L. c. 223, § 114. Cf. Quaranto v. Silverman, supra at 427 ; McIntyre v.”

Quaranto v. Silverman, 187 N.E.2d 859 (Mass. 1963). “G. L. c. 223, § 114. With respect to the wife, therefore, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict.”

Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Currie Enter., 142 F.R.D. 16 (D. Mass. 1992). “” Mass.Gen.L. ch. 223, § 114. . The Currie defendants are willing to consent to an attachment in the nature of a lien on the proceeds of any recovery in their suit against defendants Desmond and Carlyle-Omni in Massachusetts Superior Court.”

Mcintyre v. Assocs. Fin. Serv. Co. of Mass., Inc., 328 N.E.2d 492 (Mass. 1975). “See G.L.c. 223, § 114; Schneider v. Margossian, 349 F.”

Porcaro v. O'Rourke, 2008 Mass. App. Div. 218 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2008). “His remedy was to move to reduce or dissolve the attachment, or release some of the property attached, pursuant to G.L.c. 223, §114. He did not do so. Finally, Porcaro accuses counsel of providing legal services and ghostwriting for Meredith, an allegation that is not…”

Ne. Malden Barrel Co. Inc. v. Binder, 172 N.E.2d 123 (Mass. 1961). “G. L. c. 223, § 114 (as amended through St.”

Marcus v. Pearce Woolen Mills, Inc., 233 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. 1968). “A balance must be struck between the rights of bona fide creditors and the need to protect estates under administration from false claims and dilatory tactics. The present rule strikes such a balance.”

Bullock, 254 Mass. 14 (Mass. 1925). “It is provided by G. L. c. 223, § 114, that upon application in writing a judge of the court to which the writ is returnable may “upon a summary hearing of the parties,” after a finding “that the attachment is excessive or unreasonable,” reduce or dissolve the attachment.”

Higley Hill, Inc. v. Knight, 360 F. Supp. 203 (D. Mass. 1973). “*207 M.G.L. c. 223, § 114. But see Schneider, supra, 340 F.”

True v. Wisniowski, 434 N.E.2d 686 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). “5, or the relation of G. L. c. 223, § 114, to equitable relief in the Probate Court.”

Itek Corp. v. McEnness, 164 N.E.2d 636 (Mass. 1960). “There is no occasion for equitable action. Nor is there ground for going into equity to obtain a release of the defendant’s attachment.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.