Ashley Ford Sales, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Ashley Ford Sales, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America

1992 Mass. App. Div. 253, 1992 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 110

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division·Decided December 23, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Welsh, J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks indemnification¹ from the defendant by reason of its payment of $14,316.09 to Ford Motor Credit Company on a recourse note executed by one Rodriques. The gravamen of the action is that an employee of the plaintiff erroneously failed to list Ford Motor Credit Company as a lienholder and this failure caused the loss.

The defendanf s position as set forth in its answer is that its obligation to pay arose only if the mortgagor fraudulently disposed of the collateral, and that in the present case the loss of the vehicle as collateral was a direct result of the seizure of it by law enforcement official agreeable to 21 U. S. C. §881.

The court found for the defendant.

We do not reach the merits of this appeal because nob riefs were filed by the parties. Failure to file abrief in accordance with Rule64 (f), Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P. precludes appellate review. Thoresen v. LeTendre, 1983 Mass. App. Div. 191, 193. Such failure constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review. Sheridan v. Travelers Insurance Co., 57 Mass. App. Dec. 131 (1976); Soscia v. Soscia, 310 Mass. 418, 420 (1941).

The report is dismissed.

So ordered

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

Welsh, J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks indemnification¹ from the defendant by reason of its payment of $14,316.09 to Ford Motor Credit Company on a recourse note executed by one Rodriques. The gravamen of the action is that an employee of the plaintiff erroneously failed to list Ford Motor Credit Company as a lienholder and this failure caused the loss.

The defendanf s position as set forth in its answer is that its obligation to pay arose only if the mortgagor fraudulently disposed of the collateral, and that in the present case the loss of the vehicle as collateral was a direct result of the seizure of it by law enforcement official agreeable to 21 U. S. C. §881.

The court found for the defendant.

We do not reach the merits of this appeal because nob riefs were filed by the parties. Failure to file abrief in accordance with Rule64 (f), Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P. precludes appellate review. Thoresen v. LeTendre, 1983 Mass. App. Div. 191, 193. Such failure constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review. Sheridan v. Travelers Insurance Co., 57 Mass. App. Dec. 131 (1976); Soscia v. Soscia, 310 Mass. 418, 420 (1941).

The report is dismissed.

So ordered

Ashley Ford Sales, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 1992 Mass. App. Div. 253, 1992 Mass. App. Div. LEXIS 110 (Mass. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

1992 Mass. App. Div. 253 (Ashley Ford Sales, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related