RO COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL NO. 08-1904 oy 1 9 2008 SUSAN LEBEAU, as Next Friend of AARON GUSTAFSON : v. : CLERK O : NoRFO.« TOWN OF FRANKLIN : ua SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff parents of a high school student seek injunctive relief compelling the Town of Franklin (“Franklin”) to allow the student to continue attending school in the Franklin school system. Earlier this year the family sold its residence which was on property wholly in Franklin and purchased a home on property situated in both Franklin and the Town of Wrentham (“Wrentham”), The essential facts are not in dispute and the parties considered the procedural alternatives of a jury-waived trial, a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, or cross- motions for summary judgment. They chose the latter and a hearing was held on Thursday, October 30, 2008, This judge took a view of the locale on Saturday, November 1, 2008. ESSENTIAL FACTS ‘Aaron Gustafson was a student in the Franklin Public School District from 2004 until October 2008. ‘The family lived in a home which was located entirely in Franklin until June 2008. At that time, the family purchased a relatively large parcel of land and moved into the dwelling on the property. The property comprises 20.09 acres, 18.25 of which are located in ‘Wrentham and the remainder in Franklin. The buildings, which include the residency andaccessory buildings, are located in Wrentham. The only access to the property through a public way is from a cul de sae which is solely within Franklin. The driveway begins at the cul de sac ‘and the mail box at the beginning of the driveway carries a Franklin address of 10 Rona Road. The assessment of the 18,25 acres in Wrentham is $528,300, while the assessment of the Franklin land is $12,500. The portion of the real estate taxes paid to Franklin is consequently ‘much smaller than that paid to Wrentham. In the summer of 2008, the family received notice from Franklin that the child may no longer attend the Franklin schools and the child is currently enrolled in the high school in Wretham. Franklin also returned the registrations for the family dogs and advised the adult family members that they must register to vote in Wrentham. The family’s life is more oriented towards Franklin as they use the bank and postal service in Franklin and do much of the family shopping there. The family also has a myriad of social contacts in Franklin and the child, of course, has friendships developed from his schooling over the past four years in the Franklin School District. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Franklin relies on Massachusetts precedent which establishes a bright-line test, The simplest test relies on the place where the person lives, and more particularly sleeps. Teel v. Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Dist., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 345, 349 (1982); G. Lc. 76, § 5 (“Every person shall have a right to attend the public schools of the town where he actually resides .”), Here, since all of the buildings are in ‘Wrentham, that test unquestionably favors Franklin’s position. Looking beyond this, itis clear that almost 95% of the property is in Wrentham and more than 95% of the property taxes go to Wrentham, The plaintiffs suggest that the bright-line test is on the wane and that courts should look to a multiplicity of contacts andfactors. The cases that move away from a residency test are those that involve two residences, one inside and one outside of the school district. See Watson v. Lexington, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 261 (1993). The family here does have strong ties with Franklin and these are substantiated by the ‘ion is sustained on a business, social, and post office connections. Nevertheless, Franklin's pos balancing test. At the hearing, it was mentioned that the cost per pupil in the Franklin School System is over $9,000. On grounds of equity, it would seem unfair for a family which pays substantial real estate taxes elsewhere to be able to avail itself of essentially a free education in the public schools of Franklin. This Court can well understand the plight of the child who would like to remain in a familiar school system. If there were very special circumstances, this Court might exercise the type of equity powers that must be exercised very sparingly. For example, if the child were a special needs student wha wonld suffer greatly from being removed from a high-quality nurturing program, then the Court might intervene. Under the circumstances here, the Court cannot issue an order for the Franklin School System to educate the child, even for this school year alone, However, if the Court were inclined to issue such an order, it would place the responsibility on the child’s parents to insure that Franklin be compensated for its cost in providing the education. In such a situation, the parents might have difficulty seeking a contribution from Wrentham, The parties are, of course, free to work out an arrangement.