Section 66. If the copy of the writ is deposited, as aforesaid, within three days after the day when the attachment was made the attachment shall take effect from the time it was made, otherwise, from the time when the copy is so deposited; but attachments of land, and of leasehold estates which have an original term of more than seven years, shall in no case be valid against purchasers in good faith and for value, other than parties defendant, before the time when the copy is deposited as aforesaid, and no attachment shall be valid against such purchasers as to any particular parcel of land, or as to any particular leasehold estate as aforesaid, in any case where the name of the owner thereof under which he acquired title thereto as appears on the public records is not included in the writ unless the writ is seasonably amended to include such name and then only from the time when a correspondingly amended copy is deposited as aforesaid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1926–2011 · leading case:
Teschke v. Keller, 650 N.E.2d 1279 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995).
Teschke v. Keller, 650 N.E.2d 1279 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” With respect to the attachment, the controlling statute, G. L. c. 223, § 66, provides in pertinent part that: “[N]o attachment shall be valid against [purchasers in good faith and for value] as to any particular parcel of land .”
Solans v. McMenimen, 951 N.E.2d 999 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 5× “Relying on G. L. c. 223, §§ 66 and 67, Specialty Mortgage argues that a general attachment can only encumber a property if the writ includes the name of the record owner.”
Solomon v. Nessen, 161 N.E. 410 (Mass. 1928).
· cites it 2× “It is decisive in favor of the validity of the attachments in the cases at bar unless the law has been changed by G. L. c. 223, § 66, on which the plaintiffs severally rely.”
Chelsea Restoration Corp. v. Yakshamkin, LLC, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “184, §25, and G.L.c. 223, §66. At least at this stage of the case, neither statute appears to provide the grounds for concluding that CRC’s failure to identify and list Carvalho as the owner of the property on the lien renders it invalid as against Greenpoint.”
Richardson v. Brown, 150 N.E. 908 (Mass. 1926).
“G. L. c. 223, § 66. The judge made an order for a decree in accord with which a final decree was entered which recited that plaintiff had no notice of the attachment of real estate of William F.”
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.