Developer Awarded $24,000 in Damages in Lawsuit Against ’67 Norwood Selectmen-August 31, 1972

A Norfolk Superior Court judge has awarded developer George H. Clark of Southboro $24,000 in damages plus interest in a civil lawsuit brought against members of the 1967 Norwood Board of Selectmen. The ruling follows a four-day, jury-waived trial regarding the wrongful denial of a municipal sewer connection permit.

Background of the Lawsuit and Court Findings

Clark had originally sought $4 million in damages, claiming he incurred massive losses when the 1967 selectmen denied him a sewer connection permit in March 1967, which delayed the construction of 148 townhouse units on Nahatan Street for over a year. The legal battle culminated in April 1968 when the state Supreme Judicial Court ordered the town to allow the sewer tie-in.

While Judge Paul K. Connolly ruled against Clark’s claims for litigation expenses, lost rental income, and construction inflation costs, he determined that the planned development land possessed a fair market value of $300,000. Applying an 8 percent rate of return on that investment over the duration of the court proceedings, the judge established the $24,000 damage award, with interest accruing from the date of the supreme court’s order. Under state statute, the town may appropriate funds to cover the damages against the board.

Attorney Charles L. Donahue, representing the selectmen, announced plans to meet with the involved officials to discuss a potential appeal. The five individual board members named in the suit included current board members Walter J. Dempsey and Charles L. Rich, alongside Joseph F. Curran, Harry A. Butters, and John A. Abdallah (with suits also proceeding against the latter two members’ estates).

Judge Connolly’s Stern Rebuke of Selectmen

Judge Connolly delivered a sharp critique of the 1967 board’s rationale for denying the permit. The selectmen had previously argued, on the advice of the town engineer, that the Nahatan Street sewer line lacked adequate capacity. However, the court exposed this justification as contrived:

• Lack of Genuine Study: The judge pointed out that the defendants conducted no in-depth study of the line’s capacity and relied on a town engineer “admittedly not an expert in the sewerage field,” concluding the denial was merely an excuse to block the project.
• Contradictory Precedent: The court noted that the board subsequently raised no objections when the massive 1,800-pupil Junior High North was added to the exact same Nahatan Street line without incident.
• Legal Liability: Rejecting the selectmen’s defense that they acted on town counsel’s advice without malice, Judge Connolly ruled that the board had constructive knowledge of the governing statute granting the tie-in right. Because the permit denial lacked justification, the board’s action constituted misfeasance, amounting to “bad faith and was malice in law,” thereby stripping the members of qualified immunity.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger