Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 241, § 16 (2026)

Return of commissioners; confirmation; amendments; final decrees; recording

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 16. The court may after hearing accept and confirm the return of the commissioners, or set it aside and commit the case anew to the same or to other commissioners having the same powers as those originally appointed; or it may, after a hearing, amend the return, and accept and confirm it as amended. After the return of the commissioners has been accepted and confirmed, the court shall thereupon enter a decree that the partition be firm and effectual forever. If the partition is by division, the commissioners shall record a certified copy of the decree in the registry of deeds for each district where any of the land lies, together with so much of the return, as finally confirmed, as relates thereto; or if any part of the land is registered land, they shall in recording the same comply with section 92 of chapter 185.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1959–2018 · leading case: Asker v. Asker, 396 N.E.2d 704 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Asker v. Asker, 396 N.E.2d 704 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “Although later proceedings culminating in the entry of a final decree are contemplated (see G. L. c. 241, § 16), the sole questions which arise at the final decree stage are whether the actions of the commissioners have been tainted by irregularity and whether they have divided…”

Cowden v. Cutting, 158 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 1959). “G. L. c. 241, §§ 16, 18. See Carpenter v.”

Carlson v. Mayer, 30 Mass. L. Rptr. 3 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “See G.L.c. 241, §16. 11 During the final decree stage of a partition proceeding, questions may be addressed as to “whether the actions of the commissioners have been tainted by irregularity and whether the commissioners have divided the locus according to the requirements of the…”

Leombruno v. Lowre, 111 N.E.3d 304 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). “See G. L. c. 241, § 16. Although the judge did not issue an interlocutory decree and did not appoint a commissioner, the deviation from the terms of the statute did not result in any prejudice to the petitioner.”

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.