CITY OF PEABODY v. TORILIN CORPORATION (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Torilin Corporation appeals from a judgment of foreclosure entered in the Land Court in a tax lien case involving a property owned by Torilin in the city of Peabody (city). Torilin claims that the Land Court recorder abused her discretion by declining to continue to hold the judgment in abeyance during a “temporary” restriction on the ability of Gary P. DeCicco, Torilin's sole officer, manager, and owner, to obtain access to funds he could use to redeem the title to the property on Torilin's behalf. We affirm.

In September 2017, the city initiated the present matter by filing a tax lien complaint in the Land Court with respect to the property. In May 2019, Torilin filed an answer, claiming that it had a right to redeem the title by paying the amount owed. Nearly two years later, in April 2021, the city filed a motion for a finding and payment of legal fees. A hearing was scheduled but continued at Torilin's request, with the city's consent, so that Torilin could “examine financing or other means to redeem the subject property's tax title account.” When the hearing was held, on June 10, 2021, a finding entered that the city was owed $151,681.70, plus costs and legal fees, due three months later, on September 10, 2021. No payment was made, however. Torilin attributed its nonpayment to the fact that DeCicco was then a defendant in a Federal criminal case and that his assets had been frozen while the criminal case was pending.

In late February 2024, nearly two and one-half years after the due date established in the tax lien finding, the city moved for a judgment of foreclosure. On June 20, 2024, the city's motion for entry of judgment was allowed, but the judgment was held in abeyance until November 1, 2024, based on Torilin's representation that DeCicco's criminal case, pending since 2018, was wrapping up and he would soon have access to assets to pay the amount owned. When DeCicco's Federal sentencing hearing was continued, he moved for a further stay of the judgment until December 2, 2024, to which the city assented. On the city's motion, the judgment was held in abeyance for an additional four months, until March 3, 2025.

On March 6, 2025, the city moved for a general default and requested that the judgment enter. Torilin filed a motion requesting that the court continue to hold the judgment in abeyance until May 15, 2025, representing that DeCicco's criminal case had finally been resolved, that his assets were no longer restricted, and that he “has the liquid funds to pay off the tax title for the subject property.” The recorder declined to hold the judgment in abeyance any longer, and on March 13, 2025, the judgment entered, forever foreclosing Torilin's rights of redemption. Torilin timely filed a notice of appeal.

Torilin argues that it was an abuse of discretion to enter the judgment rather than allow it additional time to exercise its rights of redemption. “Decisions on requests for extension of time are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Lawrence Sav. Bank v. Garabedian, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 157, 161 (2000). To be sure, the purpose of the city's foreclosure on the property was to enable it to collect the taxes due. See Lynnfield v. Owners Unknown, 397 Mass. 470, 474 (1986). Proceedings under G. L. c. 60 for the enforcement of tax liens are designed not only to ensure that the municipality receives the taxes it is owed, but also to give taxpayers the opportunity to redeem their property. See Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams, 485 Mass. 449, 456-457 (2020). “When an owner of property taken for the nonpayment of real estate taxes comes forward with sufficient funds to redeem the property, the purpose of the statute has been fulfilled.” Lynnfield, supra.

Here, despite being given ample opportunities to do so, Torilin never came forward with sufficient funds. Nor does the record support its claim that its inability to pay was merely temporary. It was unable to pay for years before judgment entered, and it still appears unable to pay. Torilin expressed its intent to redeem title in May 2019, notwithstanding the fact that DeCicco has already been indicted. It represented in April 2021 that it was looking into financing or other means to pay its back taxes. After a due date of September 10, 2021, was set in the tax lien finding, the city waited in vain for payment for two and one-half years before finally seeking entry of the judgment. Even when judgment entered on June 20, 2024, the city agreed to hold the judgment in abeyance for another nine months based on Torilin's representations that the resolution of DeCicco's criminal case would make funds available. Those promises proved empty; indeed, in its brief, filed in this court on November 6, 2025, Torilin stated, “To date, Decicco remains unable to access the assets to redeem the [p]roperty on Torilin's behalf ․”

Torilin received ample notice and opportunity to pay the taxes due. We discern no due process violations in the orderly and lengthy proceedings conducted in the Land Court, see Andover v. State Fin. Servs., Inc., 432 Mass. 571, 574 (2000), and no abuse of discretion in entering judgment after years of forbearance.

Judgment affirmed.