Alexander v. Jordan

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Alexander v. Jordan

1991 Mass. App. Div. 98, 1991 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 50

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedJuly 16, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 1991 Mass. App. Div. 98 (Alexander v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Jordan, 1991 Mass. App. Div. 98, 1991 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 50 (Mass. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Dolan, P.J.

This is an action brought by a building contractor against a property owner for breach of contract. The property owner counterclaimed for work not performed under the contract and for G.Lc. 93A damages. The trial court found for the plaintiff on his complaint in the amount of $8900 and for the defendant on his counterclaim in the amount of $9910. The court also found for the defendant on his G.Lc. 93A counterclaim and assessed damages of $25 and an attorney’s fee of $1135. Plaintiff appeals from the findings against him.

The trial courtfound thatthe original contract was changed during the construction period. Some of the changes involved cost savings to the contractor, others additional costs to the contractor. Some of the work was not completed by the contractor involving costs to the property owner. The findings for the contractor on his complaint, and for the property owner on his counterclaim, reflect those costs.

Plaintiff alleges thatthe trialjudge failed to setforthanyprinciplesoflawwhich may have guided him in finding against plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim. We do not find this to be error because the trialjudge was notrequired to set forth any principles of law in reaching a decision. See DisL/Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 52. The absence of certain rulings of law in the record results from thefailure of the plaintiff to properly evoke Rule 64(b) applicable to requests for rulings of law.

[99]*99Plaintiff did file a “REQUEST FO R FIND INGS OF FACT AND LAW” and claims to be aggrieved by the trial court’s denial of two requests for findings of fact.¹ There is norighttoappealregardingfindingsoffacL Scanzillo v. North American Phillips Lighting Corporation, 1989 Mass. App. Div. 225, 226.

Report dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dolan, P.J.

This is an action brought by a building contractor against a property owner for breach of contract. The property owner counterclaimed for work not performed under the contract and for G.Lc. 93A damages. The trial court found for the plaintiff on his complaint in the amount of $8900 and for the defendant on his counterclaim in the amount of $9910. The court also found for the defendant on his G.Lc. 93A counterclaim and assessed damages of $25 and an attorney’s fee of $1135. Plaintiff appeals from the findings against him.

The trial courtfound thatthe original contract was changed during the construction period. Some of the changes involved cost savings to the contractor, others additional costs to the contractor. Some of the work was not completed by the contractor involving costs to the property owner. The findings for the contractor on his complaint, and for the property owner on his counterclaim, reflect those costs.

Plaintiff alleges thatthe trialjudge failed to setforthanyprinciplesoflawwhich may have guided him in finding against plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaim. We do not find this to be error because the trialjudge was notrequired to set forth any principles of law in reaching a decision. See DisL/Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P., Rule 52. The absence of certain rulings of law in the record results from thefailure of the plaintiff to properly evoke Rule 64(b) applicable to requests for rulings of law.

[99]*99Plaintiff did file a “REQUEST FO R FIND INGS OF FACT AND LAW” and claims to be aggrieved by the trial court’s denial of two requests for findings of fact.¹ There is norighttoappealregardingfindingsoffacL Scanzillo v. North American Phillips Lighting Corporation, 1989 Mass. App. Div. 225, 226.

Report dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Mass. App. Div. 98, 1991 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-jordan-massdistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack